User talk:Bagumba/Archive 15

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Bagumba. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Little help?

I tried to move "Jamar Anthony Diggs" to Jamar Figgs and my finger slipped, resulting in Jamar AnthonyDiggs. Can jou help complete the move to "Jamar Diggs?" Thank you. Rikster2 (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. FYI, I'm a lot less active these days.—Bagumba (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Hope everything is well with you. Rikster2 (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent ban/mass deletion

I was hoping you could help me understand what happened with a recent block/mass deletion that you did. I see that you blocked Baseball1948 for being a WP:SOCK account for Basketballfan12. My issue is that you then proceeded to delete all the articles that he had created based on WP:G5. Looking at the block log, he was blocked on 8/5 for a period of 1 week. The articles you deleted (at least the ones I watch that you did) Troy Neiman, Tyler Herron, Ryan Sherriff, Rhett Wiseman, Joey Wagman, Scott Burcham and Alex Katz (baseball) were all created (as far as I am aware) after the WBC roster was announced on August 26 [1]. His new account did not make any edits until 8/12 when his block expired. This would mean he created the articles 2 weeks after his ban expired, which by my understanding is not criteria for speedy deletion under WP:G5. Since they are on a WBC roster they automatically qualify as notable under WP:NBASE, and the articles could now be recreated (and I just dont feel like doing that right now :-D). I am not saying he shouldn't be blocked because it definitely was a WP:SOCK account, however I do not believe the deletions were appropriate. Thanks so much! - Galatz ^Talk 13:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Galatz: The user is under a topic ban for creating sports-related articles, which is the ban violation for which I had deleted the articles. However, you make a legitimate point for retaining the above articles, so I will restore them. They can go through normal AfD process if anyone questions their notability.—Bagumba (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it was the topic ban I was missing. I appreciate you putting them back. - Galatz ^Talk 13:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this topic back up again, I just noticed the following pages that were also deleted. Would you be able to undelete them as well or should I recreate.

Thanks - Galatz ^Talk 01:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Galatz: Done.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - Galatz ^Talk 15:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

letter u wrote to me

Hello, I'm Bagumba. Your recent edit to the page Peyton Manning appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

HELLO Bagumba, I was right and correct and the news shows that I am correct, but you took it off so u go and fit it idiot who removes things without proving they are wrong or even looking it up. YOu should have looked it up and no one proved the other things in that same category; where are u from India>???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerwilso (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gingerwilso: For the record, you added an unsourced claim that Peyton Manning was the MVP of Super Bowl 50 which was, and still is, incorrect. Von Miller was the MVP of Super Bowl 50, per Broncos LB Von Miller named Super Bowl 50 MVP on NFL.com. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Italian94

This user seems to be back to editing under the IP address: 24.238.63.30 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which you have blocked two previous times. The edits from this IP address look very similar to the master account, so another block may need to be performed here. Thanks! 2601:1C0:4401:F360:E036:CE49:FD17:5346 (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, done.—Bagumba (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Battle at Bristol

Could you move 2016 Pilot Flying J Battle at Bristol → Battle at Bristol? Multiple edits on the latter page is preventing me. It's non-standard to include the sponsor in the title of football games, and it's unnecessary to include the year. "2016" can be re-added if it becomes a series, but to assume it will at this point is WP:CRYSTAL. Lizard (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: You might be right, but I don't think its an obvious uncontroversial move. Make an WP:RM request. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Rod Woodson

Using your rationale (interpretation of the relevant guideline) for infobox highlight inclusion, would you say that college track & field highlights and/or Steelers team MVP awards are appropriate in the infobox of a Pro Football Hall of Famer? Lizard (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Bagumba.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Unreasonable edit warrior

User:WC110s has continuously restored content to Rod Woodson despite it being removed by four different editors and being warned about edit warring on their talk page. They've responded with bad faith edits such as this one, false accusations of vandalism here, and have ignored requests to gain consensus before restoring the content. Lizard (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: I'm not very active lately, so adjust accordingly if you need more urgent responses. I'd suggest starting a discussion at WT:NFL and reaching a clear consensus. Even if I had gotten to this earlier, I'd either have blocked nobody or both of you, as you had exceed 3RR as well. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bagumba. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Bagumba!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adam Fleischman

The article Adam Fleischman has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not much here about the man including an ambiguous date of birth. Suggest merge to Umami Burger which is what he's notable for anyway.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wlmg (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi protection request

Hey Bagumba. Could Greg Smith (basketball, born 1991) please be semi protected. It has become a breeding ground for vandals and trolls. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Done.—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wkoppel redux

You may recall User:Wkoppel, the prolific editor whose enthusiasm frequently outstripped his judgment. Here are a couple of links to your Talk page archives - one, two (the second being more detailed). He's back, editing from 2602:306:3794:F690:DD0C:71A5:6ACB:FC9A and FC9A2602:306:3794:F690:6DBE:DE00:935A:E74F. The focus on Big 10 sports and the (occasional) edit summaries that include the first person pronoun are the keys. Anyhow he was quite busy, and seemed not to be hurting anything for a while, but has - as he has in the past - begun to take it a little far and is getting reverted, e.g. here and here. He has never returned to address the concerns at his Talk page, here, which led to his original block, and persists in the use of socks to carry out his edits. Perhaps a couple of blocks are in order? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: Sorry, I was a bit inactive on WP when you posted this. Those IPs have not been active since. If you find a pattern to their IPs, a range block might be a possibility. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Protect

If you're on, can you protect the Kyle Korver, Chris Andersen and Mike Dunleavy Jr articles until this Cavs deal is finalized?Rikster2 (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Kover was already done. I protected Dunleavy, but Andersen has too little activity.—Bagumba (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

LA Chargers?

So is it official the Chargers are moving to LA? I haven't been paying much attention to the saga. Personally I hate seeing all these teams moving around. Especially the Chargers, who'll be leaving 55 years worth of history behind in San Diego. Lizard (talk) 06:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Press conference scheduled for Thurs.—Bagumba (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please take part in a discussion about specifying league in club history in infobox

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#League specifiers in the basketball player infobox Rikster2 (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:NFLPrimaryColor

Hello Bagumba (talk), I was wondering if there was any way to change the protection level at Template:NFLPrimaryColor? I have already submitted an edit request at the template's talk page. I have some edits at that template I would like to make. Who do I talk to to see about allowing me to make an edit at that template? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: See WP:UNPROTECT (though I'm not sure why you feel your request at Template_talk:NFLPrimaryColor#Template-protected_edit_request_on_12_January_2017 is not sufficient).—Bagumba (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Zaza Pachulia semi

Zaza Pachulia needs to semi'd. There hasn't been anything useful this year. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

2 weeks should cover the All-Star hoopla.—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC Notice

There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News#Request for Comment. You are being notified as a registered editor who has commented on that article's talk page or in a related move review. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Matt Ryan

Matt Ryan is going to need semi. Piping the link directly to the PFWA award section isn't stopping tunnel vision IPs who couldn't care less about our conventions. Lizard (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: This is a content dispute; the only protection that would be warranted is full protection, but I would suggest attempting to resolve this with a discussion first. Consider starting one at WT:NFL, and notify Talk:Matt Ryan (American football) too. Also, you could be accused of edit warring, so be careful with further reverts that aren't based on current consensus. IIRC, our "conventions" were based on a weak consensus, and WP:CCC anyhow. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with Lewisthejayhawk

Hi Bagumba! I saw that you blocked Lewisthejayhawk for disruptive editing. A handful of editors, including myself, have tried to deal with the user in the past. My best guess is that he/she will continue the disruptive edits, and very well could possible use other accounts to continue to make their edits in the mean time. I just wanted to give you a heads up that I re-opened an old sockpuppet investigation here [2]. In my opinion there is very clear sockpuppetry linked to Lewisthejayhawk, however I haven't heard back yet. If you suspect the user sockpuppeting in the next week (especially if it is on an account not listed in the SPI), I ask that you please include it in the investigation. Thank you. --Zachlp (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked them all as WP:DUCKs. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba, is this IP possibly Lewisthejayhawk? A majority of the articles (with the exception of 1 or 2) are women's basketball articles for the current season. Been at it since Sunday. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 09:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: WP:QUACK. Blocked. In the future, it's useful to refresh my memory with a sample of behavior between past socks and current user(s) that show why you think this is a sock. I honestly didn't remember the details, but dug in anyways. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. I will keep this in mind. Thanks again! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 01:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba, I think we have another sockpuppet of Lewisthejayhawk... a majority of their contributions have been to women's basketball articles, just like Lewisthejayhawk was editing. Women's basketball season articles and standings templates. Both the I.P. and Lewis have edited Texas Tech Lady Raiders season article... multiple times, which is just one of many. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Corkythehornetfan: Same IP as you reported already above. Blocked (again).—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

User Lewisthejayhawk block

I'm very curious about it. First of all I've had a history with Lewis (Check the archives of Administrator Sphilbrick's talk page[3]) that at one point led to his being blocked for a short time. He does lots of edits that need fixing and he doesn't often respond to polite requests or not till an administrator puts the hammer down.

That said, I don't see at all how he is a sockpuppet of Dereks1x. Their edit histories are totally different. Lewis works almost entirely on college basketball articles, Dereks1x didn't at all. Am I missing something?

Lewis has edited as an IP. I'm aware of that but my own conclusions based on my history with him was they weren't to escape scrutiny. He just edited while not signed in.

Whatever problems Lewis has caused, he was a highly prolific editor in an area there aren't too many people working on. I'm just wondering if an indefinite block is overkill or am I not aware of something. Please write back. I'm going to ping @Sphilbrick: so he can join in if he wants. SP had been very reluctant to block SP in the past but did so....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: I blocked Lewisthejayhawk for being a WP:DUCK of the previous Lewis accounts in the SPI. I can't speak directly to how the Lewis accounts originally got linked to Dereks1x, but it seems like a CU check made the association. At best, Lewis is a sock on their own right, but not related to Derek1x. I see your conflict in worrying that Lewis is productive and their shortcomings should perhaps be overlooked. In the grand scheme of things, you may be right. However, look at it from the perspective that their behavior going unchecked could drive away productive editors. As an editor, there's others that I interact with that I'm pretty sure are socks, but I turn the other cheek because the user otherwise has stopped or toned down their disruptive behavior. However, as an admin, I'm obligated to enforce socking rules when another productive editor complains about an alleged sock that is also not being communicative. Lewis could appeal the block, start being willing to collaborate with others, at worst take the standard offer, but so far has not. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm traveling at the moment - will try to look into this tomorrow.--S Philbrick (Talk) 01:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sage Steele's page

They are numerous IP users vandalizing and writing inappropriate things on Sage's page. I am requesting a protection on her page, please? Kalope (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kalope: Sorry, only seeing this now. Page looks to have stabilized, so protection no longer seems necessary.—Bagumba (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Kekistan

This must be dealt with, immediately. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 08:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Top kek. Lizard (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Deal with it was (by someone more diligent than me).—Bagumba (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Copyright situation of NFL Top 100

What should we do here? Should we scrap the list from each of the NFL Top 100 articles, just to be safe? On one hand, I can't see how this is different than any All-Pro team. On the other hand I know we have plenty of articles about lists that don't actually include the list due to copyright (Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time for example). Lizard (talk) 14:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thinking it over, I'm not sure if polling all the players counts as "creative manner" per WP:TOP100.—Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Which would mean... it's not acceptable? Lizard (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking it's not "creative", so it is acceptable. I'm not a copyright guru aside from the most blatant copyvios, so I'll leave it to other's to pursue, if really needed.—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Also I replied to your question of its significance at WT:NFL. Not sure if you saw since it's been swamped by other discussions since then. Lizard (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll reply there. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Userfy Handedness of Presidents of the United States

Could I ask you to userfy Handedness of Presidents of the United States? I just now heard something about an abnormal number of US presidents being left handed and I remembered we had an article on it, and by chance it was deleted not 24 hours ago. The rationale was INDISCRIMINATE but I could've sworn it was filled with info that clearly supported its notability, but perhaps it wasn't adequately sourced. A google search brings up articles from Washington Post and Time magazine, among others. Lizard (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: In this case, I suggest using deletion review instead. I looked at the deleted content, and it was decently sourced and fairly elaborate. Therefore, it wasnt deleted merely because !voters were not aware that sources existed. Still, you might have information that was overlooked, and DRV would be the proper forum. Talk to the closing admin and see how they suggest to proceed. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Demarcus cousins

You should fix his page as he was traded last night to the pelicans Jerrickc1 (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jerrickc1: Per WP:SPORTSTRANS, we typically wait the an official announcement as opposed to anonymous sources. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

http://www.nba.com/article/2017/02/19/report-sacramento-kings-agree-trade-demarcus-cousins-new-orleans-pelicans Here's your reliable source which was posted at 12 am eastern — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerrickc1 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jerrickc1: Sorry, the article is based on anonymous sources. Wait for a team itself to announce it.—Bagumba (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Matthew Dellavedova's page

There has recently been a number of vandalism on Dellavedova's page. I am requesting a protection on his page, please? Kalope (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kalope: Protected for another year.—Bagumba (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Am I wrong here?

[4]. I made a comment about it a few days ago at WT:NFL to bring attention to it. Lizard (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: Sorry for delayed response. Retired number depends if the focus is on the name of the team at the time it was retired, or the current team no longer using the number. In LT's case, the former is more relevant, but would need a different rule if the number had been retired after the move to LA. As for the team HOF, an argument could be made for WP:COMMONNAME to have it remain SD; however, it's probably too nuanced within the NFL project to have it be anything but using the current team's official name. ~~I guess WP:SILENCE is the rule here.~~ Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Strike what I said on SILENCE. I see an edit war on this at LT's article.—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't really see how a jersey could ever be "retired" for a team that no longer exists. A COMMONNAME argument can actually be made for just "Chargers Hall of Fame," which would eliminate that problem. Lizard (talk) 02:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I was more thinking of retired "by" a team e.g. they were in SD when they retired his #. Anyhow, I was more playing devil's advocate since you asked "Am I wrong here?"—Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Took me a while, but I found an example in basketball. Wes Unseld's article (though unsourced) says his jersey was retired by the Bullets shortly after he retired in 1981. If that's correct, his jersey was definitely retired by the Baltimore Bullets, but the infobox says it's retired by the Washington Wizards. So does NBA.com. That may be apples to oranges, but the Chargers name change is too fresh for us to know for sure if LT's jersey remains retired by the LA Chargers. Although I can't imagine why it wouldn't be. Lizard (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

So yeah, I was convinced but now you've stumped me. Lizard (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Have you asked the IP from LaDainian Tomlinson? If reverts are any indication, they're more passionate about this than me. Maybe direct them to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Numbers_are_retired_by_the_CURRENT_team?—Bagumba (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I usually assume every IP just ignores their talk page. If it was an account I'd probably have confronted them about it by now. And as I said, until the points you just raised I was completely convinced this was the correct way to do it. I didn't really post that at WT:NFL expecting it to be open for discussion, but rather to make people aware of a common mistake. Lizard (talk) 10:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Would certainly be the case if the user IP constantly changes. Otherwise, they get notified just like registered users, and I'm not sure their response rate is any lower than avg registered user.—Bagumba (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll give it a try next time they revert. Lizard (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Say I manage to get a considerable consensus that retired numbers should reflect a team as it's currently named. Possibly even a joint-consensus of sorts between all the North American sports projects. Then what? I tell the IP, "hey there's a consensus to not do this"? Then the IP continues anyway because the concept of Wikipedia consensus means nothing to him. Where do I go from there? Lizard (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Have they been invited to the discussion? In your worst case scenario, there is WP:AN3. 14:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Since the discussion generated such little interest I'll just drop it and move on. Guess I'll have to live with Chargers retired numbers being displayed differently than every other sports franchise. But either way, this is purely non-constructive. Lizard (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Protect

Hey, can you protect Nerlens Noel, Andrew Bogut and Justin Anderson (basketball)? Premature trade editing... Thanks. Kante4 (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

They look to be confirmed now.—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey Bagumba. Could you please semi protect Paul Pierce? There is literally only ever people vandalising the page – there are never any constrictive edits. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, 3 mos.—Bagumba (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Question: 71.35.144.89

71.35.144.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Given this, did you mean to block them for only 31 hours...? 172.58.40.87 (talk) 06:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated to 3 mos.—Bagumba (talk) 06:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Zach LaVine's page

I added the high school recruitment chart on LaVine's page, but you said that the chart was, correct me if I'm wrong, "too bulky". How and why? Kalope (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kalope: Thanks for discussing this. In bios, the chart devotes a row repeating basic information that is already in the infobox and text, like his name, hometown, high school, etc. The worst part are the sources that take up the same space as a good-sized paragraph; it looks less bloated in college articles when there are likely multiple recruits. Really, I think the key info like star rankings (and position ranking if it is high) can be stated in a few sentences, and is all that most readers will need. What do you think?—Bagumba (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I would delete the sentences before adding the charts to prevent repetition and to try to save as much space as possible, but you do make a great point about the info box. Honestly, I feel as though readers can get all the available information about the players' high school status on the charts faster than reading a medium to long sized paragraph. Kalope (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kalope: At the last discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Archive_31#Recruit_boxes_in_bios, there wasn't any consensus to add them to bios. No doubt boxes are faster to find, but I'd argue that the rankings are minor, and putting a box adds undue attention. For example, we could add boxes for stat lines for every player's first NBA game, which would make it easier to find, but it's not important enough to make it stand out so much. You can see if consensus has changed on this at WT:NBA.—Bagumba (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I will check it at. But I must add, that adding a chart for a game in the players' bio is ridiculous and it's not the same as a high school recruitment chart. Kalope (talk) 11:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kalope: Can you also hold off on adding it to any more articles, like your edit recently for Cousins. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I read the discussion you had with TonyTheTiger, and they make a good point about other charts being included on the players' pages. Kalope (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

FLC review request

Hey Bagumba. It's been a long time – hope you're doing well! Could I trouble you to have a look at my FLC nom. It's had only one review after over a month, so I'd much appreciate it if you could put your 2¢ on it. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bloom6132: My time here is a bit erratic, so was going to balk at taking on an FLC review. However, I ended up leaving a few comments. At worst, I can mark them as completed and abstain from !voting one way or another. Will see. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 07:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Bagumba, apologies for dragging you into this, but since you're an admin and you posted in this discussion a few days ago, I thought you might be able to help. CrashUnderride is now refusing to engage me in discussion in that thread because I failed to use the {{ping}} template in my replies to him; I was unaware that pinging someone was a requirement on Wikipedia talk pages now, so I was wondering if you'd be able to point me in the direction of such a guideline so that I can refamiliarise myself with talk page etiquette and potentially apologise to CrashUnderride for my oversight in this matter. After all, Wikipedia only works if everyone is here to build a working encyclopaedia and we can't do that if editors refuse to engage with each other. – Pee Jay 14:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: No worries. Glad that you are soliciting other opinions. AFAIK, there's no specific requirement to ping someone, per se. However, WP:CIVIL advises that editors should "be responsive to good-faith questions". You were asked on a couple of occasions to use ping, although each time included an "lol" in the request. One might argue that you could have stated explicitly that you were not going to ping and provided a reason. There's enough participants in the discussion, so it's not a bad thing if the two of you disengage from each other for a little while. Let me know if you have further questions.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess I see your point and I will endeavour to be more accommodating of people in the future. It just feels like CrashUnderride was using me not pinging him as an excuse to ignore my argument. That said, please tell me if you think that's an unreasonable opinion. – Pee Jay 17:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: You are entitled to your own opinion. However, it's probably just best to WP:AGF and move on. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Dereks1x

User:71.35.144.89, who is another sock of Dereks1x, is back from the temp ban you placed and is making the same disruptive edits as before. Would you mind reviewing the sock case again when you get a chance? I've also added a few other IPs to the suspected list. Thanks! --Zachlp (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zachlp: I've reblocked active IPs from the last SPI. If you're using {{ipsock}}, unfortunately those aren't actively monitored AFAIK, and it's too difficult for me to find the new ones you may have tagged. Your best bet if you expect any action is to open an SPI. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Bagumba, this user is at it again with this new account. It's name is right along with Lewisthejayhawk, a sock of Dereks1. Creation on March 10 and has only edited women's basketball articles. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Protect Bob Cousy Award?

If you get around to it, would you mind protecting this article? IPs and single-use accounts keep adding Iowa State's Monte Morris as this year's winner - they are irate that he wasn't even a finalist. There is also one account that has been warned to the hilt on this issue and could probably use a time-out. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm late to this, but activity is idle in last 24hrs, so I'll leave as is. Place on WP:RPP if you need more urgent action.—Bagumba (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Purpose of citing each entry of a list individually

I've picked up a habit of citing each entry in lists individually (e.g. AP NFL Offensive Player of the Year) since that's how I see it done for most FLs (e.g List of NBA champions). But it kinda seems like overkill to me in most cases. What would you say is the main purpose of it? Lizard (talk) 04:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

A general reference in theory could work. I remember discussing this in an FL review once. I think there was one reference that had the members of the list, but debate was whether individual refs were needed if the stats for the individual players required a click on the member links from the general ref. For example, if AP NFL Offensive Player of the Year had stats on each player, is http://www.pro-football-reference.com/awards/ap-offensive-player-of-the-year.htm sufficient? I'd say yes, some editors gunning for FL might choose to conservatively avoid the debate and just list individual ref. Personally, I sometimes use individual refs to demonstrate the WP:LISTN is met for borderline lists, esp when they don't have much prose.—Bagumba (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I mainly do it to gauge (or reinforce) notability. I know article content need only be verifiable, but showing that an award receives media coverage each time it's given goes a long way in determining its significance. I saw a list recently, can't remember which, that was individually cited with references to SB Nation and official team blogs. That defeats the purpose in my opinion. Lizard (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

And about stats on AP OPOY: do you think it'd be appropriate? I've considered it for a while. Lizard (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess it would have to be text instead of formatted columns as each position has different stats.—Bagumba (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Related, I'm thinking of making a featured topic for NFL awards, a la Wikipedia:Featured topics/Major League Baseball awards and Wikipedia:Featured topics/National Basketball Association awards. But as we know, there are hundreds of NFL awards of varying significance. So I'm limiting it to awards presented at NFL Honors since those get the most coverage. At the moment I think AP NFL Most Valuable Player, AP NFL Offensive Player of the Year, and AP NFL Defensive Player of the Year are pretty close to FL status. Could you give those three a look and see? Lizard (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I won't be able to commit to this. Good luck though!—Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Page protection requested

Bagumba, an article that came out today about some yokel at SB Nation claims the final score of the 1992 Troy State vs. DeVry men's basketball game was actually 253–141 and not 258–141. Consequently, a number of SPAs and anon IPs are rushing to re-write history on the Wikipedia article. Can you please page-protect it for the next 72 hours or so until this craze goes away? Jrcla2 (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jrcla2: I placed full protection on the article since there was no discussion on the talk page. It's verifiable, so it's purely a content dispute.—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Jrcla2 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you semi-protect this article indefinitely please? IPs will not stop changing the final score. I don't think the article should be uneditable in general, I think a protection from IP edits needs to be put in place (with no end date). For as long as this article exists on Wikipedia, there will be anons trying to rewrite history. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jrcla2: 2 weeks semi. Let's see where it goes. The hatnote seems inappropriate, so I removed it.—Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

What makes the hatnote inappropriate? It's a heavily vandalized article that has its final score being changed. The hatnote serves as a deterrent. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jrcla2: The way it was written could be interpreted as WP:OWN, even if it was not your intent. Someone else had also commented at Talk:1992 Troy State vs. DeVry men's basketball game to remove it. With it semi-protected, most of your concerns should be addressed.—Bagumba (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi protect request

Stephen Curry can't not have semi protection, I feel. As soon as the last protection expired, there was a vandal let loose. There has since been two more reverts. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Indef semi now.—Bagumba (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel Giannis Antetokounmpo needs semi ASAP. No constructive edits come out of anons or new users. DaHuzyBru (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. 1 yr.—Bagumba (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Curry verses

Hello. This is Nino Marakot. For your information, I updated the bible verse of Stephen Curry on 1 Corinthians 13:8 and Philippians 4:13. I updated it with my own New Testament Bible. Thank you for understanding, and Have a Good day! - Nino Marakot (talk) 1:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Requesting protection for Anthony Bennett's page

Numerous vandalism have recently happened on Bennett's page. Requesting protection, please Kalope (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kalope: Semi protected for 3 mos.—Bagumba (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Ianrapoport

User:Ianrapoport, on top of unsourced edits, is a problematic username (Ian Rapoport). If there's a user warning template for names like this I couldn't find it. Lizard (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: I warned them for unsourced edits, and blocked for having famous user name. For a non-admin, the closest I could see is {{uw-username}}, but that's not entirely relevant here. Just report these to WP:UAA.—Bagumba (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Los Angeles Clippers protection

Thank you sooooo much for protecting that article. It was starting to get annoying to have to revert the frequent vandalisms on that article. :) Gunnerfreak from Puzzle Pirates : Talk to me : My contributions 20:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Long-term socking on Ty Law

Can you semi Ty Law for a few months? I know that's not typical procedure for a page that's never previously been protected, but for at least 4 years a sock has been waging a steady war to remove the infobox image due to it being "misleading". It's reaching WP:LAME echelons. A few months ago there was a (mostly pointless) RfC on the talk page regarding the image. Which I guess if anything established a consensus to leave the image in. So there's nothing more to discuss. Lizard (talk) 08:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: It doesn't seem that it is a sock, and there's not that much activity to warrant a semi (a few IP edits a month). Consensus can change, and a lot of these edits have good faith edit summaries. Honestly, Junior Seau would have the same type of activity if he played for someone other than SD. I added a hidden comment to Law pointing to the prior discussion. To be fair, there weren't that many participants there, so it's not an overwhelming consensus. We can revisit if the situation worsens.—Bagumba (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Images

Last year you commented on a few images. This year at Talk:2017 McDonald's All-American Boys Game there remain 7 images for which there is no leading vote-getter. Would you care to break a few ties (Brandon McCoy, Gary Trent Jr., Jaylen Hands, Kris Wilkes, P. J. Washington Jr., Trae Young and Troy Brown Jr.)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly misnamed list articles

There's a few sports "list of players who..." lists that I've been wondering if they're misnamed, or not named as accurately as they could be. See List of NCAA Division I men's basketball players with 60 or more points in a game. Wouldn't a more accurate title be along the lines of "List of 60-point games by players in NCAA Division I men's basketball"? If it was just a list of the players who had done it, we'd only need to list them once. This isn't a list of players; it's a list of games. Lizard (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: I agree it is misnamed, but for different reasons. The most notable subject of interest is the person that scored a lot of points, not the specific game in which it occurred. WP:LISTN is met because the grouping of players is talked about, not because of the dates, opponents,a and other trivial parts of the game. Secondly, 60-points seems like an arbitrary cutoff that does not be mentioned in the lead. 50-point games is a more notable grouping, but probably too many entries. Per WP:LISTNAME: "The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject ... Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list." NBA and MLB single-game stats lists generally follow the naming convention of "List of <league> single-game <stat> leaders" e.g. List of National Basketball Association single-game scoring leaders. Similarly, this NCAA list would be better named as " List of NCAA Division I men's basketball single-game scoring leaders". —Bagumba (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with you on the arbitrary cutoff. It's tough since the line between original research and editorial judgement can be pretty thin. I feel like the sports projects routinely cross that line with these statistical lists. Such as on List of National Football League rushing yards leaders, the "Active players with 8,000 yards or more" section has been added and removed a few times for various reasons, with one supporter's rationale being that people may want to know which players are close to being on the main list. But without a source to show the significance of 8,000 yards, isn't it blatant OR? And then, if someone adds a reference to PFR's list of active leading rushers, would it not still be OR since that list doesn't give any indication of 8,000 yards being significant? That's another thin line; the one between "article content need only be verifiable" and OR. Lizard (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball players with 2000 hits, I'm resigned that fanboy usually prevails on all things related to excessive and arbitrary sports stats lists.—Bagumba (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a knee-slapper: List of college baseball coaches with 1,100 wins. Lizard (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: The rationale behind that one (my creation) was to create a manageable list of the winningest coaches in college baseball history. This was part of an effort to fill out Template:College athletic coaching wins leaders in the United States. Coaches with 1,000 wins might seem to represent a more notable threshold, and, indeed, the list initially used a 1,000-win threshold when the list was created in 2010. In 2015, I limited the list to 1,100 wins because it struck me at that time that there were too many entries to maintain it on a consistent basis. It may not be a perfect solution, but it seemed reasonable at the time. If someone wants to shift back to 1,000 wins, and maintain it at that level, I have no objection. Or, perhaps just change the title to "List of college baseball coaches with the most career wins". I am fine with the status quo or either of those two options. The official NCAA publication limits its list to "top 50 by victories," (see here), and that's fine too. Cbl62 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I see. I tend to value notability over manageability, so seeing such an arbitrary cutoff struck me as odd. This is another case that highlights how the line between OR and editorial judgement is thin. When we designate a cutoff, are we implicating notability of that cutoff? I would think so. So I would rename the article to "List of college baseball coaches with the most career wins" or something equivalent, and use the top-50 cutoff that the NCAA uses. Lizard (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

While uniformity isn't absolutely necessary, this is something that might logically apply as well to other list articles within the scope of Template:College athletic coaching wins leaders in the United States. In some cases, there may be some notability "magic" to a particular numeric threshold (i.e., List of college football coaches with 200 wins), and in other cases not. Let me chew on it for a day or two. Maybe we should open a discussion on the talk page of each list to determine whether the number of wins has special significance vs. just a random number where we would be better served simply going with a list of the top 50 coaches or some such cutoff. Cbl62 (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wkoppel sock

User:Grey_Jackal is a recently-created account with an already prolific edit history. It's clearly another sock of User:Wkoppel, whom you blocked a couple of years back for unsourced and sometimes incorrect edits, and refusal to discuss the issue. The emphasis on Big 10 and the idiosyncratic edit summaries are key. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wkoppel/Archive, and prior discussions here on your Talk page, here, here, here and here. If you'd prefer I file at SPI, I'd be happy to. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: Likely, though I will say that I've run across a few editors (not socks) since that also religiously leave edit summaries of the form "I did XYZ". Socking aside, are they still being disruptive? I vaguely remember you or someone else saying before that this editor was mostly productive. To their credit, I see them using "No." after they were told on their talk page not to use "#". —Bagumba (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely, but no, they aren't being disruptive, and agree that (in the main) they are productive - if rarely sourced. I confess to being frustrated by his repeated and persistent block evasion, but at least this way we know where he is, and I would be content to leave things as they are for now and return to you if problematic edits resume. Your call! JohnInDC (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@JohnInDC: It's actually more your call. I'm sure you can open an SPI and someone will follow the letter off the law and block the guy. I'm resigned that this will just be a serial sock who will not be deterred, and I'm willing to be lenient if it's not driving away productive editors by the "unfairness" of not following rules.—Bagumba (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

He bugs me more on principle than on practice, but I'm not going anywhere b/c of him. I'll keep an eye on him and report back if there are problems. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bagumba: re the blocked Wkoppel likely morphing into Special:Contributions/Grey Jackal, do you see the escalation venue as WP:SOCK re current block, WP:ANI, or other? Thanks, UW Dawgs (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dawg has been patiently following Jackal around and fixing his mistakes, which if they are not multiplying, are certainly not abating. And, just like the (presumptive) master Wkoppel, he's completely uncommunicative. I don't see any difference at all between the behavior of the editor under this name, and the behavior that got him indef blocked in the first place. If you're okay with it, Bagumba, I'd recommend an indef block for this sock too. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 02:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

All that said, I'd be happy to file an SPI report if you'd prefer. JohnInDC (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs and JohnInDC: Sorry, I've been away. I've blocked per WP:DUCK. If this persist, opening an SPI is not a bad idea to establish a clearer behavioral profile so other admins can get involved too. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't apologize, I / we knew you'd get to it. I'm happy to cover this via SPI in the future. Thanks once again for your help. Dawg, stay in touch! JohnInDC (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)