The RfC closer MrX noted below about the "no consensus" RfC close: "Whether that result means that the material should not be removed because it was already in the article is outside of the scope of the RfC and not a valid reason for overturning the close."
In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.
Since the coordinates remained in the article uncontested for 10 months, they became part of the article's stable version. The coordinates were in the article's last stable version "prior to the proposal or bold edit". The removal of the coordinates is a "bold edit" to the article's stable version and precipitated the RfC.
As stated explicitly in the RFC description, and as previously pointed out, the RFC was raised as a direct result of the removal of the coordinates and the discussion at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Location that commenced immediately (20 minutes) after that removal, but failed to achieve a consensus. I deliberately and explicitly did not revert the removal of the coordinates when I replied to Dhamacher's request to not include them as a courtesy, pending discussion. That courtesy should not be taken as agreement with the removal.
That Mitch Ames did not revert the removal as a courtesy is commendable. It should not result in the coordinates' staying out by default just because the RfC started and ended without the coordinates' being in the article. That would encourage edit warring and dissuade editors from showing such courtesy.
Per Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus, the last stable version for non-BLP related matters should be retained, so the coordinates should be restored and retained unless and until there is a consensus to remove them.
The RFC was closed as "no consensus"; there were several editors on each side of the debate, and (to my mind) no indication that any editors were likely to change their minds on the subject. However I do not think that "no consensus" is an appropriate decision for the RFC closure because:
According to WP:RFCEND, the outcome should be "determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies"
According to WP:CLOSE#Consensus the closer should "discard irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy"
Editors in favour of including the coordinates in the article explicitly cited policies, and well-established guidelines and precedents, specifically.
WP:NOTCENSORED: Wikipedia will not remove ... information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic
WP:GEO#Usage guidelines: In general, coordinates should be added to any article about a location, structure, or geographic feature that is more or less fixed in one place. (As is currently done on 1,000,000+ other pages.)
Editors wanting to remove the coordinates appear not to have cited any Wikipedia policies at all that would exclude the coordinates.
Even the closing statement says that there is a policy that would have the coordinates included in the article (even when an external organization wants them removed) but does not mention any policy that would exclude them.
The result of "no consensus" is not appropriate because it applies equal weighting to opinions that have no basis in policy, whereas those opinions should have been discarded; only those opinions based on policy should have been considered. I submit that result of the RFC should have been to include the coordinates because there are several policies and guidelines that say we should include them and explicitly say that we will not remove them at the request of an external organization. There are no policies that would exclude the coordinates from the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The GEO wikiproject can state whatever it wants, it is not valid policy or guideline regarding content, any more than any other wikiproject. The only real argument with a policy back was NOTCENSORED which relies on the information being 'encylopedic', given that the only point of co-ords is to precisely pinpoint a location, it is arguable if that is useful information if the location is in private ownership and is a culturally significant area that is highly unlikley to welcome tourists tramping over it. As the owners have specifically requested it not be geolocated, this is even more unlikely to be useful. What it is - useful information, precisely where it is (beyond a general area) - useless given you cant go to it. As there was only one policy-backed argument, which was directly opposed by people arguing the information was not encyclopedic, a 'no consensus' result is acceptable. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I agreed that WP:GEO#Usage guidelines is not a policy, but it is a generally accepted guideline whose existence - together with the existence of coords on many, many other articles - tell us that the precise (precision per WP:COORDPREC) location is deemed by the Wikipedia community to be encyclopedic. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikiprojects only indicate that members of that wikiproject find the work they do encyclopedic. It does not necessarily make their focus encyclopedic just because a number of people are interested in what is (for a lot of projects) less-than-useful cruft. It is arguable that there is an encyclopedic benefit to that information, and since multiple people have argued that, a no-consensus result is a reasonable close to that RFC. You need a stronger argument than 'other stuff exists' and 'its encyclopedic' when people disagree. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not asserting that the "removers" did not present any policy, I'm asserting that the removers did not present any policy that would exclude the coordinates from the article. Here's where I point out that your two policies do not exclude the coords from the article, and thus are immaterial to the discussion. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
From that point of view, then I may say that you have not presented any policy either... - Nabla (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
endorse Here we are weighing potential real-world damage vs. harm to the quality of our article. This is not a trivial issue--in fact it is in many ways one of the key issues at Wikipedia. We need to weigh these trade-offs all the time here (that trade-off is, in fact, the basis for our BLP policy). The claim by those wanting to remove it is that there is no significant gain to be had by including the GPS coordinates, and there is potential harm to the site. The claim by those wanting to keep it comes down to NOTCENSORED and a wikiproject best-practices document. I think both are fairly reasonable. So I endorse given the numbers and the relative strength of both arguments (I'm honestly not sure what I'd have voted here). Hobit (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Overturn. Once something's added, and you have an RFC requesting its removal, "no consensus" defaults to retaining the content, not to removing it. Moreover, the closure depends on "ethical concerns voiced by several editors", but we aren't bound by certain groups' ethical concerns. Perhaps there's actively consensus to remove the coords (I haven't looked over the discussion itself), but if that's the case, we'll need to have a completely new close, because the current one is deeply flawed. Nyttend (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The question posed in the RfC was "should the coordinates be included?". The result of the RfC was "no consensus to include". Whether that result means that the material should not be removed because it was already in the article is outside of the scope of the RfC and not a valid reason for overturning the close. Personally, I think an interpretation of policy that would give WP:BOLDly inserted content special status is incredibly wrong-headed. Consensus requires substantial agreement which is too large of a burden to require for removing material that never had a real prior consensus. Also, you have conflated "ethical concerns voiced by several editors" with " certain groups' ethical concerns" which is a misreading of my closing statement. One oppose commenter spoke specifically to Wikipedia's overarching purpose ("The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is the preservation of human knowledge and culture."), which is an argument of some merit. One commenter asked "Is there anything in Wiki's policy that prohibits voluntary restraint out of respect of the traditional owners?", which is a valid rebuttal of the WP:NOTCENSORED arguments, a policy that specifically relates to removal or inclusion of offensive material. - MrX 16:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The question posed in the RfC was "should the coordinates be included?". The result of the RfC was "no consensus to include". — As I stated at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Post-closure, [1] taking the literal wording of the question ignores the fact that the disputed change was the removal of the coordinates, for which there was no consensus. [2][3]. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
As stated explicitly in the RFC description, and as previously pointed out, the RFC was raised as a direct result of the removal of the coordinates and the discussion at Talk:Wurdi Youang#Location that commenced immediately (20 minutes) after that removal, but failed to achieve a consensus. I deliberately and explicitly did not revert the removal of the coordinates when I replied to Dhamacher's request to not include them as a courtesy, pending discussion. That courtesy should not be taken as agreement with the removal. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
NC is a tricky thing. What is the default when we can't reach a decision? An IP added the data and no one edited the article for a long time. But soon (in terms of edits, but certainly not time) after the addition was reverted, then reinstated then reverted again. It's not clear where the "bold" edit was. In cases like this, I think we need to defer to the closer. But a review is certainly reasonable. I'll continue to endorse that close. The more I think about it, the more I think the request to keep the data out of the article seems reasonable. It's a lot like a BLP issue IMO. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
An IP added the data ... — We should judge the edit on its merits, not on the editor that made it. If we are to judge edits based on the editor, then we need to also consider that Dhamacher has a potential conflict of interest as a researcher working on the site. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
My intent when researching the history was to figure out the timeline of all of this and mention them. In this case, it was an IP. I suppose I could have given a full IP address but I felt the exact address didn't matter. Hobit (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
It's a lot like a BLP issue ... — There's a fundamental difference: we have a WP:BLP policy; we do not have a policy that says "do not include coordinates" I know there is no policy that says "include coordinates", but see my previous points re WP:5P1 and WP:GEO#Usage guidelines as to why we should include coords). That's why my review request says the "no consensus" result is wrong - when you exclude the arguments that are not based on policy, the consensus of editors who refer to relevant policies is that the coordinates should be included.
Perhaps we should have a policy on not providing coordinates in some cases - I've certainly suggested it several times during the discussion, but none of the "excluders" seem to be sufficiently motivated to try to create one. But the reality is that we do not have such a policy, and consensus should be based on existing policies. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Policy follows practice here, not the other way around. AFAIK, this issue hasn't come up before and seems like something that is rare enough that it likely won't come up often. As such, we shouldn't have policy--instead we figure out what the right thing is to do. And we do use relevant policies. (NOTCENSORED doesn't _really_ apply because it's not about offensive material, but the spirit of the idea is there. Same with the ideas of BLP even though this isn't a BLP. We look to policy and history to help us make decisions, but when no policy is fully on point, we need to wing it and figure out what we think is the right thing to do.). Hobit (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Those discussions are a bit old, and not quite on point, but seem pretty relevant. One common thread is that we shouldn't be publishing information that isn't published elsewhere (WP:V etc.) and that that argument is a fine way to keep unpublished information off of Wikipedia. Is there a reliable source for this location? Hobit (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The coordinates originally come from an UNESCO-IAU case study about Astronomical Heritage, author was Ray Norris. This case study was published on the UNESCO Portal to the Heritage of Astronomy (see http://www2.astronomicalheritage.net/index.php/show-entity?identity=15&idsubentity=1 ). I am the Technical Manager for this UNESCO site. As soon as we became aware of the formal request (by the traditional owners of the site) to conceal the precise location, we complied with this request and changed the original coordinates to the "cultural center" where the traditional owners are happy to receive visitors and guide them to the site. Ruediger.schultz (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The coordinates are reliably sourced, as mentioned several times during the dicussions: [4][5]Mitch Ames (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The second one is effectively a blog from what I can tell, and the 1st is a later redacted report. Which I will note that the owners of the site could have removed from the archive if they requested (or created a robots.txt file). I think the situation is more complex than I had thought, but I'll stick with my endorse. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
actually we submitted such a "right to forget" request to archive.org (dated october 27, 2016), but have not yet received an answer from them... Ruediger.schultz (talk) 08:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Endorse non-inclusion'. When it comes to inclusion or non-inclusion of material, Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out". All the wikilawyering in the world about whether the material was in or out at the time of the RFC doesn't change that basic guideline, so "No consensus" means "No consensus to include". And absent any compelling reason to include the exact coordinates -- an ACTUAL reason, not handwaving about principles -- then the cultural center is perfectly appropriate to use for the co-ordinates. --Calton | Talk 08:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out" — What is the actual policy? (You know, those things that RFC decisions are supposed to be based on.) In the absence of policy, can you please provide some evidence to support this assertion of "Wikipedia's practice has always been ...". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I fail to understand how Mitch Ames thinks that further ridiculous Wikilawyering would be any way convincing. It's also not my job to educate Mitch Ames on the most basic of practices here -- his entirely self-serving interpretation to the contrary . But tell you what, I'll go dig up the (ludicrously unnecessary) evidence just as soon as Mitch Ames provides NOT further bureaucratic waffle or vague, question-begging handwaves about "encyclopedic", but ACTUAL CONCRETE reasons for including the exact location -- which is inaccessible by the general public -- as opposed the cultural center -- which is where the general public would actually go and is therefore ACTUALLY USEFUL and ENCYCLOPEDIC. It is not my job nor responsibility to read his mind to figure out why this is so goddamn important to him yet he is unable to give a rational explanation that is not 100% bureaucratic. --Calton | Talk 12:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
... ACTUAL CONCRETE reasons for including the exact location -- which is inaccessible by the general public -- as opposed the cultural center ... — The article is about the stone circle, not the cultural centre. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
In other words, no, it's bureaucratic bafflegab all the way down. Is this some sort of "fight the power!" issue with you? --Calton | Talk 15:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out, the existence of coordinates on 1,000,000+ other pages suggests that the locations of places and objects of fixed location is generally considered encyclopedic, ie appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Whether or not the site is accessible is irrelevant to the fact that the location of a fixed object/place has encyclopedic value.
I repeat my earlier question: What is the actual policy or guideline, or where is the evidence that says Wikipedia's practice has always been "When in doubt, leave it out"? You may not agree with my interpretation or weighting of WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:5P1 and WP:GEO#Usage guidelines, but I have cited policy, guideline and precedent to support my case. Perhaps you'll do me the courtesy of citing some evidence for your alleged "When in doubt, leave it out". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Note on "reliable sourced coordinates": We just got informed by the archive.org team, that (as per our request based on the request by the traditional owners http://profiles.arts.monash.edu.au/duane-hamacher/files/2016/10/Letter-to-Wikipedia-re-Wurdi-coordinates.pdf ) the UNESCO Astronomy and World Heritage Portal page about Wurdi Youang has been excluded from their index. So the UNESCO page (nor any historical snapshots of it), where the disputed coordinates originate from, can no longer be referenced as a reason to include these coordinates into the WP article.Ruediger.schultz (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I've restored this unclosed discussion after it was auto-archived due to inactivity. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
what is the process to close this review and who can do this?Ruediger.schultz (talk) 06:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
can some administrator please formally close this discussion, as it seems there are no new arguments to be brought in. We are considering to open a respective policy discussion in village-pump, but we need a formal closure of this issue here before we can start this. 80.109.124.144 (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)Ruediger.schultz (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Created by a sock puppet of Alex9777777. I am reporting it here because he reverts nominations for (speedy) deletion. --jdxRe: 13:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Remedy 2 (General Prohibition) is modified to read as follows:
All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This prohibition is preferably enforced by the use of extended confirmed protection, but where that is not feasible, it may also be enforced by reverts, page protections, blocks, the use of pending changes, and appropriate edit filters.
The sole exceptions to this prohibition are:
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.
Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 04:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Editors are limited to one revert per page per day on any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In addition, editors are required to obtain consensus through discussion before restoring a reverted edit. Reverts made to enforce the General Prohibition are exempt from the revert limit. Also, the normal exemptions apply. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Input on whether these articles are copyvio's[edit]
The article AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes & Villains (and others like it) are about a list created by an entity based on their subjective criteria. WP reproduces the entire list. The list is copyrighted here [6]. Is republishing the entire list a copyright violation? The list differs from statistical sports lists which can be generated mathematically. These lists seem to be the opinion published under copyright. Thoughts? --DHeyward (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
They would normally be, however, we do have an ORTS ticket that AFI has put these lists into the PD (see that list's talk page for the ticket #). --MASEM (t) 04:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Doh. Didnt see the boilerplate notice. I can't check the actual OTRS ticket but it seems to be addressed. I'll look at a few more similar lists to see if if this is the case as well. --DHeyward (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Article in an, apparently, abandoned user's sandbox[edit]
There's an article in a user's sandbox that's been there untouched for more than two years. I have the feeling that the user has abandoned the article. The article has the makings of an excellent contribution to the Wikipedia. However, it needs more inline citations, and I'm willing to take on this task. I've followed the article because it is a subject of much interest to me. Is there anything that Wikipedia administrators, or anyone else, can do about this article? I'd like to see it moved to article space. Here's the link to the users sandbox. I posted a suggestion to the user on his / her talk page sometime ago about this article, without response. Also, there is another article Draft:Amistad Research Center, different content about the same topic. This second draft article has not been touched in six months or so and is, in my opinion, not as good as the one in the user's sandbox. Can you resolve this issue or provide guidance? Thank you.......Nolabob (talk) 12:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I see that another user has submitted the user sandbox draft for AFC review. If you or the other editor want to improve it while awaiting the review you might want to read WP:IBID. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts may also be of assistance. They deal with this type of issue on a regular basis and should know most of the gotchas to avoid. --Allen3talk 13:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Progressive Democratic Party (Spain) has been nominated for CSD for a couple days now. I've looked at it a couple of times but I am not sure I am following the rational correctly and out of an abundance of caution I thought I'd ask for a second opinion on this one. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, no one is objecting and it sounds like you know what you are doing. I have deleted the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I've already made the moves to the correct translations, but I'm going to ask you one more thing: if you could delete this color template to also make space to the move, and the title of the template match with the correct current name of the article. Regards. --Sfs90 (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Close of discussion by IP editor reverted and discussion restarted. IP editor removed comments from discussion on 28 December 2016, after raising the matter at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents, on the same day here. No investigation of claims of IP being a sock puppet undertaken. --Sport and politics (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The close has been reverted, which is clearly the appropriate action here - the closer isn't uninvolved and the close rationale of "overwhelming consensus was reached to include juche in the infobox" clearly isn't true (opinion is much more evenly divided than that). Hut 8.5 12:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've transcluded a section from their talkpage below to use for discussion so that they may participate in the conversation. SQLQuery me! 04:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Transclusion suppressed; the relevant section is reproduced below.—Odysseus1479 16:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@SQL:the transclusion doesn't seem to have worked. Err, just noticed that it was empty. Sorry! ansh666 04:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Pinging SQL to note that this transclusion will need to be substituted after the discussion is closed to prevent losing the archive of it. ~ Rob13Talk 13:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Restored from archive. Discussion isn't closed. SQLQuery me! 03:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Sigh. This is another case of a disambiguation page being hijacked for a completely different article, and it follows the pattern of my first two recent reports (the first one here and the second here).
In this case, User Aneetir moved the disambiguation page Shaara to Freddie Lee Figgers, then retargeted the leftover redirect to one of the entries on the previous dab page, Michael Shaara. The dab page and its history need to be restored at Shaara.
In both the last two cases, the illicitly created article was deleted one way or another. I haven't even looked at this one, but it should probably be deleted as well, just because of the way it was made. But I leave that up to the admins who take care of this mess. Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Fixed/blocked/deleted/salted. Thanks for reporting. Should we consider if an abuse filter is possible for this pattern? Fut.Perf.☼ 08:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
It's worth looking into; it's easy enough for an admin to fix once detected but it takes close watching to see it happen. Good work User:Gorthian in finding these. Lankiveil(speak to me) 09:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC).
Special:AbuseFilter/657 catches external links added to disambiguation pages, which should monitor this issue, assuming the highjacking includes at least one link (even as a reference). Unfortunately it didn't see this one because the original page wasn't tagged as a dab. Sam Walton (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
That account was created in February but inactive until now; probably too old to investigate for socks. Mackensen(talk) 14:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Never too old to investigate, only too old for CheckUser. If I can find the other two reports here I'll create a case, or Gorthian might be in a better position to do it themselves. Ping me if help needed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Is this spamming behavior documented somewhere? I looked at the Highstakes00 case when it was called out in response to my first report, but couldn't find anything. I've observed some details that I could add. And I could swear I originally posted this at ANI...? — Gorthian (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess there's not a detailed description there, just links from the archive to past instances. If you'd like to add anything, please do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Village pump discussion about allowing non-admins to close FFD discussions[edit]
User:Plastikspork made an edit to User:InternetArchiveBot/Dead-links.js that IABot uses. It's fed into PHP's JSON encoder which doesn't support comments, and thus has broken the bot. If any admin could please quickly undo the edit.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 02:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what the heck you just said. But I've reverted the edit since PS doesn't seem to be around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Cyberpower678: Is there a reason why the content model of that page is still wikitext? Plastikspork was trying to fix the bogus categories, maybe the content model is incorrect? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. It's in my .js file so I would think the content model would adjust accordingly. I don't know how to change it.—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Cyberpower678: The content model of the page right now is JS. With that content model the templates are still parsed, resulting in bogus categories. Admins can change the content model of the page, say to JSON (seeing as you said that the bot encodes the JS into JSON). Then the bogus categorization doesn't happen anymore. Check User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/sandbox and its history to see what I mean. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Cool, so how do I change content models?—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Cyberpower678: You ask an admin. Beforehand though, the admin (me in this case) will ask whether changing the content model of the control page will break the bot, to make sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Should work, thanks.—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Cyberpower678: Um. Seems like changing the content model of the page has removed the automatic protection that User.js pages have. I've fully protected the page under the assumption that the point of putting the control page under the .js title was deliberate to trigger the protection; I'll remove it again if that was incorrect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
If that is the case, can you reduce it to template?—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric has closed an RFC with what I regard as an unnecessary barb aimed at the RFC creator. I created the RFC to establish the wiki norms that should be used in an article rewrite not for authorization to rewrite it. In addition, the RFC has only run for approximately 15 days instead of being allowed to run for 30 days. I note from his talk page that this is not the first time he has prematurely closed an RFC see User talk:Winged Blades of Godric#closing RfCs.
Requesting an uninvolved admin re-open the RFC. WCMemail 10:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Reply -- Well, my closing statement ( later modified at two steps) pretty well said that he was entirely free to use the secondary sources per the prevailing consensus.Not sure, why would he ask for a review!Going by his comment, here,I feel strange at somebody opening RFCs to establish the wiki norms that should be used in an article. Secondary sources are always preferred to primary sources and we don't need an RFC to establish that.And well, inspite of the credible secondary sources, rewriting(which I mean as a complete overhaul) is too strong a word in these conflict prone articles.Light❯❯❯ Saber 12:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
It seems fairly clear to me that you didn't read the RFC properly, since the RFC statement referred to the fact that an editor was insisting we could only use WP:PRIMARY sources. I started an RFC as I had an editor who did not assume good faith and in those circumstances community input is a necessary part of WP:DR. If you're going to close RFC in what you recognize is a "conflict prone article" then it's vital you understand the issue and to avoid comments about individuals in your closing statement. WCMemail 15:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster:--Well as I have said above, I completely support your logic of using secondary sources.Just that someone opposes a strictly followed Wikipedia policy, shall not deter you from choosing secondary sources over primary ones.A community consensus is at least not not needed to edit per clear Wikipedia policies.And as I have said I feel rewrite was a rather strong word w.r.t. the context but I am not sure why would take such an offence at the last sentence.( That was no way the essence of the RFC closure.) Anyway, the RFC has been reopened by an un-involved editor.Light❯❯❯ Saber 16:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I would also like you to assume WP:AGF.I don't find any inclination in indulging in personal barbs about you..Light❯❯❯ Saber 16:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I created an article Specified Bank Notes, which I am improving , I have been imposed with topic ban notice,by User:SpacemanSpiff under the pretext that I have been disruptive, if content forking and creation of new articles comes under disruptive, this is highly discouraging as a contributor to wikipedia, [8].Junosoon (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Note that this is a Arbitration enforcement WP:ARBIPA topic ban for six months wrt articles related to the Indian economy (including currency, taxation) based on the continuous failure to take in feedback from multiple editors and continuing the same behavior. The topic ban is for a short duration and limited in scope. —SpacemanSpiff 04:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment,User:SpacemanSpiff please clarify what you intent to claim continuing the same behavior!? , do you find article creations disruptive, or spin off content.?, Kindly justify your ban with evidence,!, Thanks.Junosoon (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Your talk page, your prior discussion at ANI and numerous other interactions with other editors at various places. My hope (though I'm losing it now) is that in six months you may be able to understand things better. —SpacemanSpiff 07:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
What you are claiming , to impose a ban, has to be answered in terms how Wikipedia has been disrupted, or harmed by my contributions and not just by accusations of being disruptive and imposing a ban!. Junosoon (talk) 08:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
If you can't understand the numerous warnings you've received then there's no point in my rehashing that. You have been disruptive in various different ways. At this point I wouldn't be opposed to an indefinite block owing to WP:CIR issues. —SpacemanSpiff 09:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks justified to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Assuming the user intends this as an appeal of their WP:ARBIPA topic ban from the Indian economy, I would decline it. EdJohnston (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Going by the history of the contributions of the user, the action looks entirely justified.Light❯❯❯ Saber 12:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Kindly note:I have made an appeal at more appropriate, section [9], sorry for inconvinence here, I wasnt aware of placing it at right place.Junosoon (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey guys, I just came across this page on wikipedia and it looks like a waste of space. You guys obviously know better than me so I just thought I'd let you know about this. Here's the link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Burn_Notice
Thanks for everything and keep up the magnificent work. You all have no idea how much this website means to billions of people. Keep it up and take it easy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewJohnson27 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I just had a look - it appears someone has unilaterally deleted that template and faked an Article for Discussion template to pop onto it instead. I've reverted it to an earlier version. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Note - I'm not an Admin - I just have too much time on my hands
It looks like the IP, 71.191.153.220(talk·contribs·WHOIS) has been removing templates unilaterally from a lot of articles. Cleanup assistance would be appreciated. --Majora (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Eh, I think I got all the ones regarding this particular template. Might want to go over the IP's other edits as well. --Majora (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Seems kinda quacky to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I previously requested the closure at WP:ANRFC weeks ago. However, I've not seen someone else doing the closure, so I relisted it more than two weeks ago. At first I didn't want to re-request the closure, but the discussion with Cenarium made me figure that another relisting is unnecessary and that teamwork closure might be needed. Regarding the closure, I guess we can wait for a few more days or weeks until at least one volunteer comes alone. If one volunteer is not enough, maybe the second one? I don't think third volunteer is necessary, but I won't discourage the possibility. --George Ho (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Just noting here that only an experienced closer (or closers, ideally) should tackle this one. At a minimum, the closer should be aware that substantive changes to policies such as the protection policy require not just consensus but widespread consensus according to WP:PGCHANGE. ~ Rob13Talk 23:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd actually been drafting a close personally on Google Drive for a few days now. Hoped to close before 2017, but ah well.. Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 15:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The scope of his 2010 topic ban is modified from "race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed" to "the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed".
If he behaves disruptively in any discussion, any uninvolved administrator may ban him from further participation in that discussion. Any such restriction must be logged on the R&I case page.
Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin are reminded that tag-team editing, account sharing, and canvassing are not permitted.
These restrictions are to be enforced under the standard enforcement and appeals and modifications provisions and may be appealed to the committee after six months.
There is agreement that the topic ban should not be lifted at this time. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 17:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is an appeal of the topic ban I received in early July.
In the topic ban proposal my behavior in this thread was cited as the reason for my topic ban.[11]
In the future, I will take additional time to seek consensus for the edits I make and, whenever necessary, will post edit proposals on the talk page before adding new information to an article. I will also make more frequent recourse to venues such as the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Furthermore, I will make sure to include a broad range of scholarly perspectives in any articles I edit. Ricky81682 mentioned in the topic ban proposal that I shouldn't use sources that aren't available online, so I will also be using more websites and online articles, which I will make sure to read carefully before citing in a Wikipedia article.
As can be seen in my block log, I have never been blocked from editing Wikipedia before, and I have a long and continuing record of constructive contributions to Wikipedia, so I feel that now my topic ban should be lifted.TH1980 (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Reviewers of this appeal should keep in mind:
a primary reason for TH1980's TBAN was his constant and flagrant POV-pushing over a large number of Japan-related articles, not just Korean influence on Japanese culture
another primary reason was TH1980's constant WP:IDONTHEARTHAT approach to every discussion he took part in and the tendency to bury discussions in comment after repetitive comment to discourage outsiders from examining the meat of the dispute
TH1980 has a tendency to make sneaky edits against consensus with false or deceptive edit comments
TH1980's tag-teaming with CurtisNaito, the other party to this TBAN, and who also tried to get this TBAN lifted recently—very unsuccessfully
TH1980's TBAN has nothing to do with using offline sources, which are never discouraged—this is a red herring. CurtisNaito tried a similar trick in his appeal. It's very likely they're collaborating off-wiki on the wording of these appeals.
TH1980 and CurtisNaito have caused a lot of editors a lot of grief—many of them gave up editing History of Japan entirely over this mess. Please, please, please don't put us all through this mess again. Curly "the jerk" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 01:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Curly Turkey is making accusations about collusion and TH1980's intentions without evidence and should be disregarded here. I don't believe TH1980 has ever acted deceptively. I do agree that TH1980's editing has been problematic in this topic area, and that a topic ban was needed, but let's look at the appeal on its merits. TH1980 recognizes that they repeatedly used sources inappropriately in this topic area. What have they proposed to avoid this in the future? Using the reliable sources noticeboard as a check makes sense, and I'd suggest further that they do this before making edits to the article. They also seek to use online sources that are more accessible to other editors. I don't think this is a red herring at all; TH1980 has sometimes misunderstood source content or integrated it inappropriately into articles. To the extent that this content is accessible to other editors and discussed ahead of time, these problems and ensuing headaches in discussions can be avoided. A major problem with TH1980's past conduct was about failing to seek consensus from other editors about their changes. Naturally, efforts to seek agreement about article decisions in this area would be expected, rather than boldly making problematic edits and getting into more disputes. Finally, I will make sure to include a broad range of scholarly perspectives in any articles I edit needs a little more specificity about how they will do this, but I recall that TH1980 sometimes wanted to include claims written from nationalist perspectives that conflicted with more neutral sources. TH1980, can I ask how you will identify sources that are more neutral moving ahead, as this was a consistent issue you had in this topic area? I JethroBTdrop me a line 04:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi I JethroBT. I would carefully review a source to see if it was presenting facts in a neutral or biased manner, and I would avoid using any material that was biased. On a related note, if I came upon a page that I felt lacked a scholar's viewpoint that merited mention, I would propose edits in the manner I did at the Battles of Saratoga talk page re: whether or not Benedict Arnold was at the front during the first battle. [12]TH1980 (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I've struck the allegation of collusion. Everything else stands. Don't make us go through these circles again. It's eaten through far too many people's patience already. Have you reviewed the thousands upon thousands of bytes of discussions here and at Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture that led to the two being TBANned in the first place? TH1980's bad faith was extremely well established by several editors—he wasn't TBANned for mere "slips", but for persistently misrepresenting the sources, as well as all the other reasons listed above. Please, I JethroBT—don't don't be an accessory to another three years of this garbage. Curly "the jerk" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: I have reviewed these discussions many times over, as I've tried to intervene in these disputes. Yes, I am exhausted, too. My read of those discussions was that TH1980 had consistent problems with sources and how to use them in this topic area. They did not adhere to feedback given by you and other editors in too many situations, and did not seem to understand why their edits were problematic. I agree that it was very frustrating. At the same time, this feedback was usually delivered by you and others in a manner I found antagonistic, threatening, and/or belittling. This kind of conduct probably feels good to say at the time to let off some steam, but it violates WP:CIVIL (which I'll readily admit I have not done the best at enforcing because this community is rather divided on the matter) and it just makes the situation worse regardless of whether the substantive advice is right or wrong. If TH1980 engages in the same behavior in this area (e.g. failure to use RS, making controversial edits without consensus, bludgeoning discussions) as before, I will reinstate the topic ban. But the appeal includes a decent plan to avoid the issues that lead to the topic ban in the first place, and that is what is expected, so I support lifting the topic ban. I JethroBTdrop me a line 06:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Your "TH1980 had consistent problems with sources" sounds like a polite way of expressing what I said below. Are you agreeing that TH1980 misused sources? Do you see anywhere that TH1980 has acknowledged that? Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@TH1980: Do you acknowledge you have misused sources in this topic area? I JethroBTdrop me a line 00:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Thankyouthankyouthankyou! Merry Christmas & Happy Emperor's Birthday, everyone! I was having a shitty day with my laptop on the fritz, but this so makes up for everything! Curly "the jerk" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 02:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Curly Turkey, knock it off. Your mocking behavior is disruptive and absolutely unhelpful in having an actual discussion here. This is why folks take such a dim view of discussions here. TH1980, having read your response above and below, I am primarily concerned that you reject misusing using sources in this area when it was clear that you did misuse them. Whether you intended it or not, the beginning of your response below makes it sounds like I (and others) have misunderstood what the problem was. Let me be clear in saying that your topic ban was justified because you misused sources, applied the content inappropriately, and persistently edited against consensus. If you continue to fight this notion, your topic ban is unlikely to be overturned. I JethroBTdrop me a line 04:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@I JethroBT Yes, I fully admitted that my use of sources needed improvement. The only reason why I was initially reluctant to accept the word "misuse" was because I thought it implied that I had put information in the article that was different from what the sources said. Of course, I never did that, nor was that the reason for the topic ban. I pointed out below just one example of how I should have used a broader range of sources and of how I should have explained on the talk page what sources I was using before attempting to add them to the article. The specific example I gave concerned rice transmission, but all the other disputes were of a similar nature. By not using additional sources from a broader range of perspective, I did misuse sources, and I noted in my initial statement how I intend to improve myself in this regard.TH1980 (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@I JethroBT To clarify the above, yes, I admit I misused sources. I would like to qualify my admission by stating I did so not with malice aforethought but due to being confused and bewildered by not only Wikipedia rules but also the consistently hostile reaction I kept getting. I thus kept editing when I should have stopped and reassessed the situation, for which I am truly sorry. As you can see from the example I cited at the Battles of Saratoga talk page, I have already been taking steps to better my participation as a Wikipedia editor.TH1980 (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@I JethroBT: Fine, I'll "knock it off", but I also expect you to examine the reasons for the TBAN—which, as several of us have told you, was not over "misusing sources". Deal? Curly "the jerk" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 07:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@I JethroBT I understand what you are referring to, though. The problem was that I should have cited a broader range of sources and broader range of information. For example, all the books that I was using, including Rhee, Barnes, Nakazono, Imamura, etc... (as I quoted in the link above) said that rice cultivation came to Japan through Korea, and so I put that into the article. However, as all these books also stated, the ultimate source of the rice was China. Therefore, I should have also put into the article that the rice culture that arrived in Japan through Korea initially came from China. Furthermore, other sources were later found indicating that the transfusion of rice culture could possibly have come directly from China, without going through Korea. Therefore, I should have looked deeper into these other theories in advance and included them as well. In my defense, I did include the alternative theories about direct transfer from China after they were pointed out to me, but I should have consulted more sources and included the information right from the beginning. I should have explained what the books that I was using said about the matter before adding them to the article.TH1980 (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This deflective comment in no way reflects the extraordinarily wide varieties of behavioural issues that led to the block. TH1980 was not TBANned for neglecting to mention that rice came from China. I'm going to say this again: TH1980 was not TBANned for neglecting to mention that rice came from China. Do I need to say it again? Curly "the jerk" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 02:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sturmgewehr88, Seth Kellerman, and Wehwalt:—have I missed anyone? The disputes were ridiculously long and spread over several pages and archives. Please add anyone I've missed. Overturning this TBAN is not a light decision to make. Curly "the jerk" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 05:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Piotrus, KoreanSentry, and Homemade Pencils: were not pinged. Incidentally, this topic ban was only related to the edits on Korean influence on Japanese culture. My edits on the article History of Japan were investigated in excruciating detail by an admin who found that my edits there were not problematic.[13]TH1980 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Only six of the nineteen people who stated their opinion supported topic banning me from all articles related to Japan. The source of the confusion was that member Ricky81682 proposed that I "be topic banned from the Korean influence on Japanese culture". That was actually a page ban, not a topic ban. When other users came in saying that they "support a topic ban", they were referring to the original "topic ban from Korean influence on Japanese culture", which was a misnomer, not a topic ban applying to all Japan-related articles.
The vote was as follows:
Ricky81682=proposed Korean influence "topic ban"
TH1980=opposed
1=Softlavender=supported Japan topic ban
Nishidani=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
Homemade Pencils=opposed
Piotrus=opposed
2=Curly Turkey=supported Japan topic ban
CurtisNaito=opposed
3=Spacecowboy420=supported Japan topic ban
Tivanir2=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
Johnuniq=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
4=Thomas.W=supported Japan topic ban
Blackmane=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
KoreanSentry=opposed
Mackensen=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
5=Begoon=supported Japan topic ban
6=Sturmgewehr88=supported Japan topic ban
H.Humbert=opposed
Seth Kellerman=supported "topic ban" proposed by Ricky81682
Six out of nineteen does not count as a consensus. In fact, the thread was originally archived because a consensus was not reached, but Curley Turkey reactivated the thread. 1TH1980 (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: I'm assuming good faith here, but as an uninvolved editor, I'm not familiar with the context of the dispute. Could you please explain how you chose this list of editors to be pinged into this discussion? AlexEng(TALK) 09:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
AlexEng—note well that the thread linked above gives barely half the picture, as the discussion spilled out into the Korean influence on Japanese culture talk page, where several of those who had been defending TH1980 came to realize what he was all about and returned to ANI to get TH1980 and CurtisNatio TBANned. Curly "the jerk" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 09:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The problem was not related to seeking consensus and so forth—it was because the edits were consistently and persistently slanting the articles towards a certain POV. The topics are obscure and not easily evaluated by editors who have not studied in the area. However, it is easy for anyone to cherry-pick factoids or draw inappropriate conclusions about what sources say, then consistently and persistently slant the articles towards a certain POV. The topic ban is helping the encyclopedia and removing it would be unhelpful. The OP above reads like a how-to WP:CPUSH guide—it is not reasonable that the few editors with knowledge in the area should be expected to battle each factoid and inappropriate conclusion. Johnuniq (talk) 05:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The reasons for the topic ban were many and extensive and longterm, and involved obstructionism, deception, manipulation, tag-teaming/collusion, and endless amounts of IDHT non-collaborationism and POV-pushing. The wording of the topic-ban itself should not be taken at shallow face value; the background for it requires reading of the entire interminable thread starting here: [14]. It hasn't even been six months since the indefinite topic ban was imposed. I honestly think that the accuracy and reliability of the project is at stake if TH1980 goes back to his deceptive, manipulative POV pushing. His appeal request bears similarity to the equally blithe appeal by his tag-team pal, CurtisNaito: [15]. I really think the TBan should stay indefinite. Softlavender (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - At this time, I am not convinced that overturning this ban would be beneficial to the encyclopedia. I am open to evidence to the contrary, but the appeal itself is not sufficient. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose—the appeal addresses virtually none of the wide variety of behaviour issues that lead to the indefinite TBAN in the first place, and the appeal has misrepresented the TBAN as being related to a single article rather than what the TBAN explicitly states: "articles relating to Japan, broadly construed". Note: while this member of the duo has a clean block log, they do have an an interaction ban handed down a year ago from the Arbs for WP:HOUNDING, relating to articles involving Japan-Korea disputes. Curly "the jerk" Turkey🍁¡gobble! 22:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - per my extensive editing experience with the appealing editor and his statements during this appeal. I originally would've !supported an appeal with probation, but he seems like he'd easily slip back into old habits. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 01:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose from what I've read above, I'm not convinced lifting the topic ban is appropriate at this point in time. Blackmane (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Vandalism at the industrial psychology article page[edit]
There is an editor called Iss246 over at the industrial psychology article aggressively deleting great swathes of sourced text, without any discussion on the talk page of the article. Can an administrator take a looksee, and maybe roll back to before they started their hack job. POV?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
It looks like a major rewrite of the article, not vandalism or something else that ought to be treated aggressively. Some of the deletions I checked were for seemingly good reasons: for example, this removed a misinterpretation of the source, this removed a paragraph that didn't make much sense, and this removed something that was being greatly over-emphasised. Please note that pro-and-con sections are not normally appropriate, and what you've restored sounds like someone wrote it for a poor-quality school assignment, so deleting it was definitely the right thing to do, and putting it back was quite unhelpful. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I looked over their spot editing again, and yep, it does seem to be some decent edits, but deleting whole sections like this [16] without talking about it first, seems unhelpful. At least four major sections were deleted, either totally or mostly. I think it's all now taken care of.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Nyttend, how is deleting this whole section today, with lots of reliable sources helpful. [17] This is just another example. It looks well written to me.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Their other spot editing is good, and the issue has been dealt with.Charlotte135 (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
When a section has several-year-old problems like that one did, removing it is better than retaining it unchanged. Be aware that by readding some of the problematic content, you're making yourself responsible for adding bad text to the article. Please don't again restore any problematic content. Nyttend (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Rather than deleting sections that have lots of good sources it's always good to try and rewrite it. After looking over Iss246s' editing again, most of their changes seem to be a matter of opinion, and removing whole sections of well written and well sourced text, was not helpful. It was only this section [18], as you noted Nyttend, that had "several-year-old problems". I am not opposed to removing this section [19] Nyttend, as it does seem to be poorly written. I will try and delete some of it and rewrite other parts. The matter has now been dealt with, and I've considered your comments.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Satt2 is unbanned with a topic ban from all thing Georgia (Country) for 12 months. Satt2 is counselled that further controversial editing is most likely going to be final. SpartazHumbug! 07:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Editor's note: I'm bringing this back from the archive. There should be enough material in here for an admin to decide one way or another--letting this languish in the archive is not the proper way to go. Thank you.Drmies (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Years ago, when I was still an immature High School student, I made the mistake of block evasion and copyright infringement on Wikipedia. When I was first banned, I didn’t know anything about the possibility of a fresh start, so I simply kept coming back in disguise, which eventually turned into a pattern of sockpuppetry, spanning numerous accounts. Satt 2 is the earliest account that I still have access to, hence my submission through this account.
After my most recent block as Damianmx, I had an honest, off-the-record conversation with an experienced administrator @Drmies:. Drmies told me about the possibility of a clean start and encouraged me to admit to my wrongdoings in order to make things right, which is what I set out to do. Following up on that advice, for over six months now, I have not produced any sockpuppets and neither do I intend to engage in that kind of behavior in the future. Moreover, I have not engaged in any copyright-related violations for several years.
Drmies has graciously unblocked me on the condition that I make this official unblock plea to you directly. After a long period of socking, I understand that many will not be eager to support unblocking me. However, if I am given a way out of this long cycle of block evasion, I intend to make the best use of this opportunity. In the past, I have authored countless well-sourced articles and edits, many that I have been thanked for. If I am given the possibility of a new start, I promise to channel my productivity on Wikipedia but, this time, as a legitimate editor. I ask that you consider.--Satt 2 (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE:@KrakatoaKatie:@Boing! said Zebedee:@78.26:@Drmies:@Od Mishehu: and others: I tried to keep my appeal as short and to the point as possible, so I apologize if I mistakenly gave the impression that I was not willing to be held accountable for instances of combative attitude and editing on my part. I take full responsibility for that behavior and cessation of that type of combative editing was implied in my promise to be a productive and rule-abiding member of this community. I don't know what caused me to be as pushy as I was in some of my past edits. Perhaps it is the fact that many editors I was up against employed similar tactics. For instance, my most recent "conflict" was with Tiptoethrutheminefield, who has already been subject to various forms of blocks 8 times, yet he has no longstanding bans. Surrounded by freewheeling editors like that, I was mistakenly led to believe that I could employ similar tactics and get away with it. I was wrong and immature in that belief and there is no excuse for instances of battleground tactics on my part. If I am given a one year topic ban, perhaps I could prove during that time that I am capable of being a rule-abiding and responsible editor.--Satt 2 (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Support, of course! - We all grow up. 6 years ago I was much more immature! I initially made an account to write a shitty page about myself, thinking of Wikipedia as on the same level ar UrbanDictionary. And now see where I'm at. Time for a second chance, and thanks for deciding to stick with us and continue volunteering your time and efforts to Wikipedia despite the initial mishaps. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Addendum for the closer: The fact that I would support without a topic ban implicitly means I'd also support with a topic ban, even if I don't personally think it is strictly necessary. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Salvidrim!, I'll write a shitty page about you for free, any time. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, unless combined with a rigid topic ban from all things Georgia (country). This user was initially blocked not merely for being an immature high school student, but for making problematic content edits, and his socks (up until this year) kept getting recognized and blocked not merely because of block evasion, but because they were still making those exact same problematic content edits. This user has apparently always been a national POV warrior, and I see nothing at all in his unblock request addressing this. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Satt 2: Before I would be willing to consider supporting this, could you supply a full list of accounts you've used in the past? ~ Rob13Talk 07:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: since the socking happened over a considerable stretch of time, and rather casually as well, I can't really give you a full list of accounts because I honestly don't remember. However, I can confirm that all of the accounts discovered through this string of SP investigations are indeed mine.--Satt 2 (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
The above needs clarification. In a previous statement [20] Satt2 wrote "some poor soul Olivia Winfield was indefinitely blocked on "behavioral grounds" as my sock but she really, really had nothing to do with me". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
What I meant to say is that, off the top of my head, I don't remember all the accounts that I've ever created. However, when I specifically reviewed the content and timing of Olivia Winfield's activity, I confirmed that she is simply not me! She appears to edit the same niche Georgian articles and has shown combative attitude, that much we do share, but I can't be the only person with such attributes. Also, note that Olivia Winfield was not part of the string of official SP investigations that I had pointed to; she must have been blocked separately.--Satt 2 (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming this. I was concerned that your post here could be used say that, based on that post, Olivia Winfield WAS you. But it seems they have found other ways to avoid remedying the error in that block. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Support with 1 year topic ban per FuturePerfect. Saying that this behaviour was "years ago" is dishonest when the same behaviour was recurring just six months ago, though the request acknowledges this further down. I share FuturePerfect's concerns but see no reason this user shouldn't be given a second chance. They should stay out of the topic area that caused problems for them until they can establish a pattern of productive editing. (Non-administrator comment) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Support with topic ban per FPAS. I find it interesting that this OFFER appeal comes exactly six months to the day after his last edit as Damianmx. I'll extend my good faith about the socking, but I won't extend it to the POV-pushing that took place and isn't addressed in this appeal at all. Katietalk 15:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Supportwith topic ban. If we'd had an appeal that convincingly covered the POV-pushing, I'd probably support a unconditional unblock. But as it stands, I share the concerns of others here and I would only support an unblock coupled with the topic ban suggested by Fut.Perf.Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Having considered Satt 2's additional comments above, and Drmies' below, I'm now happy to change my preference to an unconditional support. My confidence that Satt 2 really does understand the old problems is strengthened. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I kind of want to stay out of this, since I am not very familiar with the editor's work. The conversations I've had with the editor have been positive, and I'm a big fan of good faith. On the other hand, I can't find fault with Fut.Perf.'s comments, and I would support the proposed topic ban. On the other hand (third hand already?), one of the edits pointed out in the SPI for Damian (behavioral proof of socking) was this one--and while it is true that it established proof both of socking and of a preoccupation with Georgia, it is also true that those tags were valid: the sentence was weaselish, not touched upon in the rest of the article. Moreover, the linked article (Greater Iran) is littered with tags that seem valid to me, and a matter of contention since 2006. (Boing, sure--POV pushing, but this time it pushed toward a proper balance, IMO.) In other words, the socking was bad, but some edits at least were valid. It is unfortunate that we're then hamstringing someone because of their bad behavior (socking, edit warring, etc.) in an area where they may well have something positive to bring. Satt/Damian, you brought that on yourself, unfortunately, and if you get unblocked with a topic ban, you'll just have to suck it up. But this is a good start. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Support with topic ban per reasons given above as I have nothing useful to add to the conversation. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 17:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Support with topic ban, ans perhaps a ban on uploading images (per his last block log entry). I think we can give the user a second chance, gien that he understands that a third chance would be MUCH harder and with appropriate safeguards to kep him from the causes of the disruptive behavoir. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 19:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Question Satt2's past actions, when combined with administrator incompetence and arrogance, hurt at least one entirely innocent third party. Will Satt2 confirm here that they had no connection whatsoever to Olivia Winfield [21], an editor who was blocked for being a sock of Satt2. And will an administrator now reverse Olivia Winfield's patently unjust block. Or are they happy to create a situation where the sock is unbanned but the person incorrectly banned for being the same sock remains banned? Oh, I see no evidence that Satt2 has changed - he accuses other editors of being "freewheeling editors" who led HIM astray! This shows his lack of acceptance of or understanding about why he was blocked, and hints that little may change if he does return. I agree a ban should not last forever, so let him return, but a topic ban from ANYTHING to do with Georgia, very widely construed (i.e., including Russia, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Iran) and for the suggested year, seems a minimum restriction to have in place to safeguard such a return. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Unconditional support. Any further problems can be addressed as needed. Miniapolis 00:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment before I will cast my vote, I'd like to mention two things; first of all, I sincerely doubt myself as well that Olivia Winfield is related to Satt2. I in fact asked the blocking admin some time ago about this (@Daniel Case:), and I believe, if I deducted the conclusion correctly from his words (please correct me Daniel, if needed), that it could indeed be true that Olivia Winfield was blocked with an erraneous "label", but the block was simply not lifted/changed due to his/her uncomprimising behavior even while being blocked. Hence, the tag remained.
You are correct. Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, on Wikipedia an editor is not allowed to express anger if they are unjustly blocked, even if their third appeal against that unjust block fails, even after the sockmaster admits they were not that editor and an administrator confirms it and the blocking administrator also admits it. And it is acceptable, as Daniel Case will confirm, for administrators to call unjustly blocked editors who express anger at their unjust block ""pissy, petulant and pubescent" who are "temperamentally unsuited to being a member of the Wikipedia community". Being "unsuited to the Wikipedia community" I interpret as engaging in the "uncompromising behavior" of questioning the decisions of administrators in ways that imply failings in those administrators. That is an unforgivable offense. However, creating multiple socks in order to engage in years of nationalistic pov edit warring is forgivable. Happy days indeed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing innocent regarding the Olivia Winfield account. The account was created contrary to policy to evade the block of this IP where it was used to continue the same disruptive edits and personal attacks as the IP. The sock tags only note a suspected master which is purposefully distinct from confirmed. The socking itself is glaringly obvious. The account should not be unblocked.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry but that is absurd. Olivia Winfield was blocked for being Satt2, not for being Jaqeli. Jaqueli has never been permanently blocked, so why would Olivia Winfield bother appealing a permanent block if they were already back and editing? I have had editing contacts with Satt2 (under his later socks) and with Jaqeli, both have similar strident editing aims, but I do not see any similarity between their editing aims and the admittedly limited number of edits made by Olivia Winfield. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
None of which addresses my point that the Olivia Winfield account was created as a block evading account, specifically to evade the block of IP 68.109.175.166. You are free to make the argument that the suspected masters are incorrect, but the block is sound as the account was created and edited contrary to policy. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
You can provide no evidence of that. The IP address belongs to one of the world's biggest internet providers. What I do know, based on actually having edited in the same area, is that there are no behavioral connections between Olivia Winfield and either Satt2 (who they were blocked for being) or Jaqeli (the editor using that address was blocked for being Jaqeli). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
The behavioural evidence is overwhelming. Have you even looked? The account was created two days after the IP was blocked and was subsequently used to make the same arguments at the same articles using verbatim edit summaries. It's as obvious as can be. There is no point even having this discussion here, as it's using this standard offer appeal to continue your soapboxing against what you perceive to be an incorrect block.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
What same arguments as who exactly? Jaqueli? The IP was blocked for being Jaqueli, yes? The error is worse than I thought. As well as the unjust block for being incorrectly accused of being Satt2, Olivia Winfield while editing as an IP address was unjustly blocked for being incorrectly accused of being Jaqeli. No wonder they were so angry and utterly contemptuous of administrators! None of the edits or the editing pov of Satt2 or Jaqueli bare comparison with any edits or editing pov displayed by Olivia Winfield. The pointlessness is me expecting any administrator to remedy this - so there is nothing more I can or will add here. I will make a link to here on Olivia Winfield's page. Maybe Jaqueli could make a disclaimer, like Satt2 did. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
My second point; the last CU blocked sock of Satt2 is known to have tried to move the "Transcaucasia" page to "South Caucasus" in the past, on 29 May 2016. When a RfM was made on 25 November 2016 on the talk page of the same article, in order to discuss the option to have the page moved, an IP geolocating to earlier CU confirmed IP's of Satt2 while using, as what I would describe, the same profiency in English, and signing the same way, provided support for the move. This just several hours after the request was placed. Could obviously be sheer coincidence, which (WP:GF assumed) it probably is, but I'm just wondering. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
LouisAragon, I am not sure which IP you're talking about. There's one there that links to [[22]], and I don't see your geolocation point either. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Drmies:, yeah, I just noticed that I forgot to provide a link, sorry. I meant this one. - LouisAragon (talk) 19:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
There is also this newly created single issue account with an inexplicable pre-understanding of everything to do with Wikipedia: [23]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Assumption of good faith Support, while leaving open the possibility of quick reblocking if POV mentality resurfaces, despite assurances. Happy days, LindsayHello 09:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Unconditional support - Everyone deserves a second chance and my gut says they are being sincere, so no restrictions are needed at this time. If there are problems with POV, they can be dealt with at that time. That said, they probably need to listen to Future* and avoid that area for while, as a matter of good judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Unconditional support – What not to give them a second chance? I hope, from the lessons learned, they will find a proper way to resolve NPOV disputes. --KoberTalk 08:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose or 1 year topic ban - It is very interesting that Satt chooses to begin his appeal as though he has been inactive for the past 6 years, when he has continued the same line of behavior a mere 6 months ago as Damianmx. Instead he just revisions it as that he hasn't socked in 6 months. If hasn't learned his lesson in 5.5 years, how can he in just .5? We have seen nothing to indicate that he has changed in anyway, so an unconditional unblock should be out of the question. In fact, WP:CLEANSTART is supposed to be for only editing in entirely unrelated fields. Typically before topic bans are removed, the editor must prove they can edit other topics without controversy. Satt should not be an exception to this. If he can go 1 year with substantial contributions on articles with no relation to Georgia or its neighbors, then perhaps the ban can be removed. But if he goes back to POV pushing, the block should be put back with no multiple second chances. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Support with one year topic ban I believe in second chances, and the apology seems genuine, but they need to show they can stay away from Georgia-related topics for a year and be constructive elsewhere. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Support. I was the one who handled the sockpuppetry issue in Commons. I think one last chance may produce benefit. As far as I remember most of the user's contribution was related to Georgia so topic ban to Georgian related articles doesn't make sense. --geageaTalk 14:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Support and agree with user geagea with topic ban unblock will not have sense, if we forgive him let's give one more chance.--g. balaxaZe★ 18:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Oppose or 1 year topic ban - For me its unfortunately very unconvincing as well. Sockmasters who are active on this place for the amount of years equal to Satt2, are relatively rare. Six years is not some kind of joke. As already stipulated, if all previous socks couldn't resort to proper editing, as well as the most recently blocked sock Damianmx (blocked a mere 6 months ago), why should we be willing to just outrightly believe that everything would be now "solved" all of a sudden? No, I believe that there's a very deep editorial problem with applying user in question. His three unblock requests on his last CU blocked sock "Damianmx" (first two requests were to blatantly deny sockpuppetry/any editorial issues, last one, before a standard talk page access removal would be imposed, was virtually the same text placed here on this page) are a further attestment to that, in my opinion. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
6-month topic ban I am unconvinced that the user would not resort to the same behavior that kept getting him caught. There are plenty of other articles to edit and show change. Ramaksoud2000(Talk to me) 05:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Situation resolved. Blackmane (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just blocked Scjessey(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) as apparently compromised. The account was making the same "OurMine" edits to the Barack Obama and Donald Trump articles as we had with the compromised admin accounts a few weeks ago. Just an FYI, I suppose: be on the look out (and enable 2FA if you can and haven't already!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen has unblocked after getting confirmation that Scjessey is now back in control of his account. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All of the nearly 355 articles prodded by user Sportsfan 1234 should be deprodded as mass deletion can never be uncontroversial. It always requires discussion. In the absence of easier/quicker alternatives at removing the PRODs, I would suggest a WP:MASSROLLBACK of the user's edits.
A bigger number of prods were originally added but many were reverted and some expired prods have already been deleted. A list of pages currently carrying the prod tag is at draft:mass sports afd. 103.6.159.77 (talk) 08:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
During what period of time did SF1234 prod these articles? Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
About an hour, starting around 00:00 December 24, looking at their edit log. Dragons flight (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
It looks like these were added several per minute, which is not enough time to check that each was correct. Sportsfan 1234, was there some sort of discussion before you did this, because on the face of it, this seems disruptive. I note that most if not all have now been reverted. Lankiveil(speak to me) 06:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC).
That's not correct. It had been going on since 20 December. They haven't all been reverted, Lankiveil. See draft:mass sports afd which lists 355 pages still carrying the PROD tag. 103.6.159.68 (talk) 08:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I've provided the AN notice that you should have but did not. We need a response here, as this is quite serious. This is borderline bot-like behavior and a complete bludgeoning of the deletion processes. As the IP stated, mass deletions are not uncontroversial. Looking through deleted contributions, there are a good dozen or so articles that I plan to WP:REFUND after this thread concludes which seem along the similar vein. ~ Rob13Talk 09:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also a bit concerned about the edit notices to User:Lugnuts that were placed and then deleted within a minute. Hobit (talk) 10:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I guess he'd get sick of telling me 100+ times about the prods, as I created many of the xxxx at the 1996 Summer Paralympics articles. I removed the prod from Zimbabwe at the 1996 Summer Paralympics per WP:NOLY (full reason is in the edit summary). I think there's two issues here: 1) Mis-use of the Prod facility ("Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion") and 2) a wider consensus that's needed at WP:SPORT/WP:OLY, etc, to agree the notability of individual countries at multi-sporting events. I've breifly raised this before, but it needs wider input. I think everyone agrees that countries at the Olympics/Paralympics are notable, but then to extend this to the Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, Pan-American Games, etc, etc. I could start a RfC in the New Year when most people will be able to add their views. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 10:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hobit: Per WP:BLANKING, removal of content from one's own usertalk page is permitted (with some exceptions) and is an indication that the user has read and understands what was originally posted. I have no concern with Lugnuts' actions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 18:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
If you look a bit closely at the edit history of my talkpage for 23rd/24th Dec, you'll see that I DID NOT remove any of the notices, rather it was Sportsfan who removed them as quickly as they posted them. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 18:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
↑ What he said. :) Yeah, it was the original editor who removed it. Hobit (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
@Hobit and Lugnuts: My apologies; I misread the edit history. Removing PROD notices like that is certainly dirty pool. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I see a consensus above on the abusive use of PROD. Can a an admin or rollbacker please bring down the mass rollback tool on Sportsfan, to remove the PRODs? Is it technically possible? 103.6.159.68 (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi guys, all of the articles that I have proded were duplication of information that existed on another article. "It looks like these were added several per minute, which is not enough time to check that each was correct" - that's not true. If an article has literally one-two lines its very easy to read (especially since most are copy and paste with the country name changed). The reason I went through the prod process is it allows for the articles to be improved. For ex. the Indonesian articles at various games were improved to the point a deletion is not necessary anymore. If the articles are not improved it shows its probably necessary to delete. Furthermore, "I'm also a bit concerned about the edit notices to User:Lugnuts that were placed and then deleted within a minute." - I started an AFD before and Lugnuts had removed the notice(s) and asked for it not be placed on his talk page. I think the issue here is not notability as it has been established. However, the issue I have is the duplication of information, which I am in the opinion of should not exist across multiple articles. Also as mentioned on another talk page, I apologize if this is seen as disruptive, but my intentions were never to disrupt the project, merely to reduce the amount of pages that I felt were duplicating information (granted there are literally hundreds of them). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
"I started an AFD before and Lugnuts had removed the notice(s) and asked for it not be placed on his talk page" - I had to do some digging about this, and it goes back to March! I dropped a note on Sportfan's page asking not to list them individually on my talkpage. My main gripe would have been getting a talkpage notification every other minute for the duration of you proding/AfDing them. One grouped notice would have been fine. And pretty much every article I've ever created is on my watchlist, so I would have seen them come in. But that's an aside to what others (including myself) see as a mis-use of the prod function. I would have started some discussion first at the relevant projects to get some sort of consensus on what to do. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 15:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I've de-proded a ton of these now. You can see the edit summary I used on this example. Some were incredibly poor sub-stubs, such as this one, so I've redirected them. There's still a lot left with the prod tag. I might get time to look at them later, but feel free to chip in, unless the mass-rollback is rolling into town soon. Note that my de-prodding isn't an endorsment of each article's notability. Some of them look questionable. Lusophony Games, anyone?! LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 19:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
All the prods on nation pages at a multi sporting event have been removed now. However the Colombia at the 2011 Summer Universiade page for some reason is still in the category. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, although if you two had informed me before that you planned to deprod manually, I would have instead asked to replace them with AfD tags! Anyway, I think a big trout needs to slapped upon WikiProject Multi-sport events for failing to, as of yet, establishing the notability guidelines for the different types of articles. Basically, they all fall in 7 hierarchies, as I have identified at Draft:Wikipedia:Notability of multi-sport event articles (Which I'd be obliged if moved to main WP space). The tick presently denote the existence of that category of articles. Although in the longer run, they should be replaced to denote notability, which needs to be established through a series of AfDs and RfCs (Which I don't plan to start myself: I’m too busy). Help from Sportsfan 1234 and Lugnuts will be much appreciated in this regard. 103.6.159.74 (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
And yeah, those annoying question marks indicate that the existence of those categories of articles haven't yet been checked. 103.6.159.74 (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I note that Sportsfan 1234 have turned many of this into AfD nominations (which is fine) but they have not tagged many of the nominated articles. Nabla (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
That's not true (at least the first bit). Please get your facts straight before commenting @Nabla There is only one discussion [24] which had two articles that were proded (the others were added by another user). All other active AFD discussions started by me were not originally proded. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Given that you PRODed hundreds of articles and were asked here to use AfD instead of mass PRODing, I assumed they were mostly the same. I now proceed to assuming they are different. That is not the relevant issue, the main issue is that you do mass nomination of articles for deletion without taking the appropriate care to advertise the nominations. Nabla (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@Sportsfan 1234: Thank you for de-PRODing the mass-nominated articles. Note that if you do a multi-nom at AfD and fail to appropriately tag the affected articles, the articles cannot be deleted unless the AfD is relisted with the appropriate tags. Please tag all articles you nominate. ~ Rob13Talk 22:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Please could an admin look at this RM. It has been open for a while now, but no-one has contributed to it for the best part of a week. Note that I have contributed to the discussion. Thanks. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 12:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Closed in favor of moving, since consensus was clearly in favor of moving; I also left a stern warning not to impose MOS:JR on non-biographies. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
That "stern warning not to impose MOS:JR on non-biographies" was highly inappropriate, since all previous RM discussions of such things have closed with consensus to apply MOS:JR even to non-bios. Your closing statement sounded more like an anti-MOS rant than a neutral close. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Definitely inappropriate to use admin status to push personal political crusades. The community expects admins to adhere to the high standards laid out in WP:ADMIN in this respect. Tony(talk) 04:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking back to refresh my memory of past anti-MOS moves by Nyttend, I found his rants at Talk:Harrison–Crawford State Forest#Requested move. I think there have been more, but I'm not sure how to find them. It seems to me that Nyttend should recuse himself from closing discussions involving the MOS, given this strong anti-MOS history of quite a few years. Perhaps a move review is in order (even if it doesn't change the decision, a more sensible closing statement might be arrived at). Dicklyon (talk) 04:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, here, very recently, you took a strong position on exactly the topic you just closed: User talk:Dicklyon#Hoaxing. If that's not WP:INVOLVED, I don't know what is. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Threatening one entire group of editors with sanctions just for having an opinion on the matter that the admin does not agree with (or having a discussion the admin is personally tired of and should opt to ignore and go do something else) is a serious WP:INVOLVED failure. Nyttend does have strong views on the topic at issue, expressed in the RfC on it at WP:VPPOL in February [25], and is thus clearly WP:Supervoting. More importantly, it's beyond the pale for an admin to attempt to suppress future RM discussions about an issue that bothers them for whatever reason. The strong bias is self-evident in this "judicial activism" close, and reaffirmed by Nyttend's comment above. It is not Nyttend's right to administratively declare for (or, more to the point, against) everyone else what a guideline may pertain to; that's a community consensus matter.
Cases like this particular RM are about "edge" or "grey-area" matters, and require consensus discussion to see how the community wants to apply which guidelines and when. It's a necessary consequence of MoS and the naming conventions guidelines being guidelines, to which exceptions are sometimes held to apply. An argument for an exception necessitates a discussion about the case-by-case merits of such an idea. These normal and expected discussions about article titles essentially only happen when moves are proposed and aired out. Yet the closing admin is unilaterally attempting to forbid any such discussion ever happening again about their pet nit-pick.
Background: The consensus at WP:RM on the "Jr. comma" has been entirely in favor of removing it, with exceptions only (so far as I have seen) for titles of published works that include the comma and do so consistently (off-WP), which is not the case here. This source consistency requirement is part of all MoS provisions about style variance (MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, etc.), and of the WP:COMMONNAME policy. The on-WP consistency with regard to MOS:JR in particular has been applied to literally everything else in addition to bios, from buildings to ships to organizations to artworks, named for people with "Jr[.]" or "Sr[.]" in their names, as well as fictional characters. Nyttend's wishful thinking that MOS:JR somehow "only" applies to bios is demonstrably false, and was never intended that way to begin with, or this would have been stipulated in the VPPOL RfC – an RfC that Nyttend is essentially trying to undo by personal fiat. Note that Nyttend's comment in the RfC dismissed such consistency as "rule creep" and expressed a desire that such matters be determined on an article-by-article basis. This is essentially an anti-consensus argument against the very existence of MOS, WP:AT, and the naming convention guidelines, which evolved for the principal purpose of restraining the constant tendency of people to continually fight and rehash about such trivia on page after page, day after day, year after year, which would be (and historically was) a tremendous waste of editorial time and source of frustration and stress.
The closer's advocacy on this trivial matter is a good example of the conflict over meaningless style trivia that ArbCom has warned against repeatedly. The comma in this construction is quite literally meaningless and serves no semantic purpose, being just redundant clutter that some hang onto out of some sense of nationalism and nostalgia (the comma used to be preferred in American publications, but this has not been true since ca. the 1980s, just as the hyphen in "to-day" disappeared by the 1930s, and the circumflex in "rôle" by the 1960s). Fighting to including it against guideline consensus (reaffirmed in a VPPOL RfC!) serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, and is a classic example of what "tendentious editing" refers to. It is also counter to WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OWN policies; little camps of editors with a stylistic axe to grind do not get to make up their own fiefdom rules against site-wide guidelines. Otherwise MoS, AT, and the NC pages, lots of other guidelines and policies to boot, would have no reason to exist.
PS: I think this close should go to WP:MR (if it's not simply retracted or voided, and closed by someone else properly, without having to invoke an additional layer of process). The closer does not appear to have evaluated the merits of the arguments presented at all, but simply done a voting head-count (in the one RM on the matter to date with numbers on the closer's side), and to have given more weight to a pile of WP:ILIKEIT votes than to policy- and RS-based reasoning presented by others. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Saying that the closer did not evaluate the merits of the arguments simply because they went against you is highly inappropriate. One could equally say that any argument in favor of deliberately falsifying the title of a well-known film that's spelled correctly in major references like the Library of Congress' National Film Registry, all to adhere slavishly to a style guideline from another WikiProject entirely, is an improper argument and that the closer behaved logically, reasonably and admirably.
And incidentally the MS:BIO guideline is only for names, anyway ... not movie titles.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe a bit overboard with the warning, but the RM's close was obvious and correct. The film's name contains the comma, it is not a real person but the name of a well-known and honored film, and bringing it back to its obviously real name can only help Wikipedia's accuracy. Randy Kryn 19:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Randy, this is not a place to re-argue for and against the move. Dicklyon (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
SMcCandlish seems to be doing a good job of that, maybe you can add his name in front or back of mine on your note. Randy Kryn 19:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely not: if you look through the keep votes, you'll find numerous people rejecting this attempt to apply a subject-specific MOS page to a topic outside that subject; consensus could hold that WP:JR is a model that should be followed here, but this clearly wasn't the case. Other uninvolved parties would do well to observe that we have significant double standards in play here: a small minority demand that their weak arguments be given precedence over the stronger arguments of the majority, they make a big complaint when an uninvolved admin closes the discussion in line with consensus instead of in line with their weaker arguments, they fail to notify the admin in question, and when two people rehash the original arguments at the complaint instead of restricting their comments to the issue at hand, only the stronger majority argument is objected to. This is not good-faith collaborative editing: it's disruptive and tendentious, and it needs to be handled accordingly. Nyttend (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
"This is not good-faith collaborative editing: it's disruptive and tendentious, and it needs to be handled accordingly" sounds like it was written about the WP:TAGTEAM who have repetitively resisted virtually every single MOS:JR compliance move, about bio articles or otherwise, since the RfC, presenting the same already-rejected arguments every single time. I have never in my decade-plus on Wikipedia seen this level of repeat forum shopping to try to WP:WIN against an already established consensus. Its a problem, it needs to stop, and it's become even more obviously a problem now that someone with admin bits is involved in it, too. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 22:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Everything had stopped, the comma thing was over. But then someone had to try to extend it to films about fictional people, especially one with such renown and honor. Maybe a bridge too far. I don't know why you, who seem reasonable at many points, would want to 'start this up again' by not endorsing this move, and opening up the same can of worms. Don't blame me. Randy Kryn 22:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Nobody tried to extend it to films. That film had been at the comma-free title since its creation many years ago. There was no need for someone to try to put a comma into it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Disagree with Dicklyon and others arguing in favor of deliberately falsifying a movie title so that it adheres to a WP:BIO style guideline that does not apply to WP:FILM. I don't understand why that's so important to that editor and others arguing, in one case with inappropriate wall-of-text bludgeoning, to not accept the RfC close. Falsifying the title of a well-known film that's spelled correctly in every major source including the Library of Congress' National Film Registry seems extraordinarily non-encyclopedic. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Why would Rotten Tomatoes and this original movie poster "deliberately falsify" the title? Or maybe that's not what they're doing. Maybe they just have different styles. Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes is hardly a journalistic site, so there it's a matter of sloppiness and low standards. An encyclopedia is supposed to be better than that. If you want proper standards, look to the Library of Congress. That's the standard to which we should strive.
And aside from the fact that the poster is not the movie, most posters do show the comma: [26], [27], [28], [29]. You know why? Because that's the actual, onscreen title. If you don't believe me, maybe you'll believe the Library of Congress and the American Film Institute. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Reminder: This is NOT a forum to debate about the comma or its lack. This is AN. The problem is that any disputes have to be closed by an UNINVOLVED admin. Any admin who is involved in the discussion should REFRAIN FROM CLOSING, even less threaten participants with sanctions. People may be wrong, but as long as there is no policy breach, nobody can be threatened just for presenting their point of view. — kashmiriTALK 04:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I see three potential issues, mostly not appropriate for this board.
Is the result proper?
Normal move appeal is the appropriate venue.
Is the close proper?
His status as admin is irrelevant to this question, so the proper board might be to appeal as above or WP:ANI, not here. (I believe a non-admin close would be proper, as the MOS in question only applies to people, and has been extended (with little objection) to things named after people, which this film is not. There is no guideline-based argument against the move.)
Is the closing comment appropriate?
That seems to be threatening admin action, although a rational person person could read it as a prediction, rather than a threat. That is the only matter appropriate for this board.
I agree, mostly not appropriate to this board (I posted as a followup to the request that prompted Nyttend's action that I'm complaining about). So I took it to AN/I as someone suggested, and a non-admin closed the discussion there, saying it should be here. So far, no neutral admin has said he has looked at my linked evidence of Nyttend's involvement. It would be good if someone would do so and say so, and make a call on the involvement complain. The key evidence is at User talk:Dicklyon#Hoaxing, where Nyttend had equated my removal of a comma per WP:JR with vandalism, saying "hoaxes are not tolerated". Having expressed such a strong opinion on exactly the question in the Steamboat Bill RM, he should have voted like others with strong opinions, rather than closing with the pretense of being a neutral party. Dicklyon (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I would have closed it the same way with a similar injunction against using the Biography MOS for a film. Granted I wouldnt threaten 'sanctions' as I am not an admin. But it was certainly such a terrible use of guideline to attempt to enforce a preference that it needed to be addressed. My preferred wording for such things is 'Argument X for position Y has been rejected due to editors citing policy/guideline Z'. Citing a biographical MOS in order to get a preferred film name sans comma is just ridiculous so I can understand Nyttend's wording completely. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Me too. I'll AGF and not speculate on the motives of those arguing against the move, but I think the result is the obvious one. GoldenRing (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for assuming the 6 opposing editors were acting in good faith. That's something the closer did not do. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Resolved by Katie. ~ Rob13Talk 10:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think we need an univolved admin to close this on AN/I, where an editor refuses to drop the stick. After a complaint was NAC closed, he carried on, moving the goal posts as he went. Someone needs to decide if sanctions are appropriate, and for whom. Any closer should make sure that they haven't been within a million miles of the issue, lest the editor decide that a comment you made 10 years ago makes you WP:INVOLVED. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Closed by Krakatoa Katie, and the thread in now archived. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal to modify the administrator inactivity policy[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Per the result of this RFC can the following pages be undeleted rather than having to log individual requests.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The page GoGoVan has been deleted three times, using CSD G11 and one of them also under A7. Now, however someone has created a suitable article located at GoGovan. Please could the article GoGovan be moved to GoGoVan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliverrushton (talk • contribs) 09:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved to proper title. No opinion on whether the article is suitable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– Diolch i "Boing!" - mae o wedi sortio popeth, dwi'n meddwl. Da iawn pawb. BencherliteTalk 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
There are frequent (multiple throughout the day) updates in the List of Pobol y Cwm characters article. Some of the updating in being written in Welsh. This includes descriptions of the characters, and since I can't read Welsh, I'm unsure if what's being written is appropriate for the encyclopedia itself. | like this example . So, additional eyes are being requested for this article . KoshVorlon}User:KoshVorlon/Template:TimeStamp
Other than pronouns, none of that article should actually be in Welsh as this is ENWP. But a lot of that is abusive/vandalism anyway (I live in Wales and have basic conversation knowledge of the language - dont ask me to translate complicated stuff). I have taken it back to 17th December as that is the last good English-language version. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I am fairly confident Wjbeynonl's contributions are all duff. I have taken both articles back to prior to their involvement. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I've indef blocked as a vandalism-only account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I am a moderately-poor Welsh-speaking admin but Arwel Parry would appear to be the best qualified Welsh-speaking admin... mind you, as OID says, this is ENWP anyway. BencherliteTalk 16:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention That was definitely a vandalism-only account, so you certainly did the right actions. I've lived on the wrong side of the border for the last 40 years to really keep up with slang, but "pedin" is certainly part of the male anatomy, and "hoyw" is the standard word for gay, so you can probably guess the tenor of the edits! -- Arwel Parry(talk) 19:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
but on examining, it seems to be a lot of them are expiry-dated, Do not Move to Commons that have expired.
Can an admin assist in
1) Amending the query so it doesn't show the clearly expired ones?
2) Amending the templates so the expired ones don't show up.
3) Transfering files over to Commons.
4) Any combination of the above.
Thanks,
This needs Admin assistance as a number of the templates are likely to be protected.
Can you provide an example in a sandbox of the edits you'd like made to specific templates? It's not clear to me what you're asking an administrator to do, but I'm an administrator who's both well-versed in copyright law and an editor of templates, so I may be able to help. ~ Rob13Talk 22:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's possible to provide a sandbox example. Basicly I'm asking someone to move the files that can be to Commons, and fix the template so there's a way to remove the conflict between {{Do not move to Commons}} and {{Move to Commons}} which gets added automatically. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
For the template changes, could you perhaps give a file which is affected by the current conflict? For the files, that's not possible. The state of our file space is so bad that we need human review on files before moving to Commons. I chug away at that backlog every once in awhile, but each file takes a while to fully review, especially claims of no notice or no renewal. ~ Rob13Talk 10:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
An ancillary question: should I continue reporting these hijackings here, or should I report them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00? My primary purpose in each of these instances is to restore the disambiguation page. — Gorthian (talk) 06:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I think reporting them here (or on ANI) is probably the most useful, since it requires different admin actions than just sock checking. Thanks again, good job finding all of these cases. Fut.Perf.☼ 08:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Fut.Perf. - even if this was done by someone else, it should be fixed, so it should be requested separately from the sock check. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
An abuse filter might be helpful to track these. I'll look into that later this week. Please don't archive this until then. ~ Rob13Talk 10:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all. BU Rob13, I can maybe help with figuring out the filter; I'm pretty well versed by now in dab-page mechanics. Though always learning! Ping me or post on my talk page. I've been working slowly through this list, which is how I've run across most of these, in case that's any use to you. — Gorthian (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Unblock with a warning not to engage in any of the behavior that led to all the previous blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've transcluded a section from their talkpage below to use for discussion so that they may participate in the conversation. SQLQuery me! 04:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
SPI clerk comment - this account is blocked as a sockpuppet of Mabelina based on behaviour and not on technical data. In my opinion the case is strong, however I see no reason to decline the request on this sole basis if the user intends to use only this account from now on. Pinging Vanjagenije and Drmies for input. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: many thanks for your consideration and I can confirm without any doubt that I shall use « L'honorable » as my user name from now on. There probably is little point in rehearsing the same old arguments but the simple reason for the confusion is that « Mabelina » was the user name of my wife (before we divorced) which we did use jointly from time to time. Anyway as you realise this is in the past and also as said if agreeable I should be delighted to contribute further (where helpful and with caution!). Thanks again and looking forward to hearing. Best, L'honorable (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Considering that L'honorable has owned up to joint use of the Mabelina account, agrees to stick to only L'honorable now, and has gone the six months with (presumably) no socking, I'm happy to support a Standard Offer unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: thank you for your support & hereby just confirming that I have not socked for over six months nor shall ever again. In fact I can't even remember how to access the « Mabelina » account now, but more importantly I shall not be socking under any guise in the future. I am more than embarrassed that I allowed myself to get into this situation, and trust that we can draw a line under that episode and move forward. Many thanks for your understanding. Best, L'honorable (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC) PS. because there has been no further comment [since before Christmas], I thought it worthwhile to investigate as to why that may be. Although painfully aware that I have frustrated certain powers-that-be, to me this seems not a good enough reason for my continued block. Nonetheless, the silence is deafening, so could you please advise as the case may be? L'honorable (talk) 03:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
With only supports and no opposes there's clearly a consensus to unblock at this stage, but I think it's probably best to leave it for at least a full week from the transclusion to ANI, and leave enough time for RHaworth to respond to the ping below - so perhaps give it a few more days. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee: just in case you're editing from the transclusion at AN, it might be best to come over to the user's talk page and read the full thread from above the unblock request. There aren't any opposes per se but it's not quite unanimous. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm editing directly from here (the user talk page). But what I did mean was indeed that there have been no opposes since the request was transcluded to ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and the key difference I see that resolves the issues from before the latest unblock request is that L'honorable has owned up to sharing the Mabelina account. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Curious. Pinging RHaworth who it seems may know this person (or these persons) in real life. For my own part I will support this unblock request. It seems to me that L'honorable was trying to learn the ropes earlier this year when they stumbled into a sockpuppetry block, and has not socked subsequently in more than six months. Since Mabelina is also blocked and not likely to be unblocked, I don't see any good reason not to grant this request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@L'honorable: the delay since Christmas is likely due to it being around Christmas and not as many users active at this time, nothing more. I recommend reading the "assume good faith" guideline, and understand that while some editors were previously bothered by your edit warring, there is no hostility towards you as an editor. Wikipedia culture comes with a steep learning curve, but most editors will be pleased to offer guidance if you ask polite questions. I say this because if you treat your fellow editors as though everyone is out to get you, then very soon they will be. Please ask questions if you need help, and try not to take it personally if your contributions are edited or reverted. Best of luck. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ivanvector and Boing! said Zebedee: you are both most kind to attend to this matter and I can assure you as well as RHaworth with whom I am indeed acquainted that your faith in me will be more than reciprocated. Many thanks again for the update and looking forward to hearing further in due course. Meantime all best wishes for the New Year. L'honorable (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to interfere, but my name showed up earlier in the discussion. I am neither an admin nor an usual contributor on en.wiki, and my english is not very good. Most of my activity consists in chasing copyvios and helping with deletion requests on commons. If I may, I would nonetheless strongly oppose this request. Indeed, this user has shown on the other projects the same problematic behaviour which caused his block here :
on commons, he has been repeatedly uploading copyvios files. When his files were nominated and deleted, he contested the deletion, the community consensus and the official policy (see [30] and his contestations here [31] ). He took these actions as personnal attacks [32]. In addition, he repetedly behaved in a very incorrect way, removing deletion tags (see [33]) and removing all categories of files [34] just because they displeased him..
on the German wiki, he was blocked for forcing editions in spite of his clear lack in linguistic ability ([35]).
on the French wiki (sorry for the non French-speaking), his activity indludes the same abuses :
his numerous edits show a very approximative knowledge of the French language, with many linguistic errors he reverts even when other users try to correct him. For instance his incorrect form "D'ascendance de la haute noblesse" was corrected, but he reinserted the same fault in the next paragraph on a further revision "aussi d'ascendance noblesse bohémienne"). Basically he tried to import an english form which does not exist in French and refused to accept the correction. Frequently he does not even make the effort to try to speak French.
he claims to "improve articles" but inserts historical or factual errors. In this revision, for instance, he adds a coat of arms image which is different from the sourced blazon added by a previous contributor, introducing an inconsistency and a factual error. In the page [36] (which he seems to consider as his masterpiece), he has introduced many linguistic errors, historical/factual/heraldic inaccuracies and confusions (the worst being the confusion of a 12th century duke of Brittany with his 15th century homonym), he has invented arms for non armigerous persons of the 12th century, he has refused to follow the recommendations of the wiki heraldic project...
these errors have led to harsh disputes where he refuses to accept and ignores other contributors arguments [37]
in these disputes he has repeatedly erased comments of other users because they despleased him [38].
he frequently accuses the local heraldic expert to behave as a censor, calling him ironically a pseudo "roi d'armes" (king of arms) because they desagreed [39]
in spite of being repeatedly asked not to use the "notify/ping" tag by this user, he continued for weeks to harass him with it
he called the local heraldic workshop a politburo[40] because they did not obey his demands
after each argument, he presents himself as a victim and complains that everyone is hostile [41][42]. He suggests that this hostility is personnal and due to the fact he is British [43].
I therefore fear that lifting the block would result in the return of the same abuses this user was blocked for. Kathisma (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Halo Kathisma : I do not view this at all as interfering, and in fact I welcome your viewpoint (let's indeed all strive for transparency) ; I can for the most part (I say this because should you wish to go through your complaints line by line, I shall of course be willing to engage) resist all your observations/criticisms (not least because the "roi d'armes" to whom you refer and I are working very well together - qv. the very many recent liaisons). So please reconsider your assertions, which may have more to do with other reasons than to do with me. Let's leave it at that, because as I have been advised above it is no good engaging in a contre-temps, especially one so needless. Your central point is utterly unfounded, but nonetheless please write to me in French on my discussion page should you still have questions which you'd like to iron out. Merci à toi et cordialement, L'honorable (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC) PS. voir Projet:Blasons ; PPS. voir aussi sir Anthony Berry : tu connais l'éditeur anonyme peut-être ? (I also note that in the English language version about Sir Anthony Berry you have introduced into the Infobox your own COA image, for far from clear reasons - & I suppose it could be pointed out that if you had such great knowledge of the subject why hadn't you previously created a good heraldic image for the Berry family?). But hey, at once, you are drawing me into having to justify myself, where I believe it is not required. So let others adjudicate svp - à bientôt et cdlt, L'honorable (talk) 03:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC) PS. could I also ask you for your prompt reply as to why you deemed it necessary to state "nouveau nom, d'après les blocages qui ont été faits sur les wikis anglais, allemand et néerlandais" in your representations at Wikipédia:Le Pub? This to me seems to go against all the advice I have received above... Anyway let me know... Thank you. L'honorable (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Highly sceptical unblock proposal. He does appear to have kept to the terms of the standard offer so we should assume good faith and unblock. However I confidently predict that we will soon see a return to the disruptive activities which got Mabelina blocked so many times. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 18:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The statement "my intention with regards to contributing further to Wikipedia is by making only factual contributions" does not appear to address the issues. I'm sure everyone thinks their knowlege and copyvios are "fact", but that's hardly what got this editor in trouble. Very few of my own edits have to do with "fact", as I think about it, and if all I did was add facts that I know or can find, I'd be blocked, too (OK, I know, I have been blocked; but not for facts vs not facts). Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@SQL:the transclusion doesn't seem to have worked. Err, just noticed that it was empty. Sorry! ansh666 04:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Pinging SQL to note that this transclusion will need to be substituted after the discussion is closed to prevent losing the archive of it. ~ Rob13Talk 13:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Restored from archive. Discussion isn't closed. SQLQuery me! 03:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Restored again - still not closed. SQLQuery me! 05:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Diannaa pointed me here, so let's go. Recently a template at discussion got a non-admin close for a merge after a very long discussion. The problem is that in my opinion the discussion was far from reach any merge consensus, I counted 11 support votes for merge and 19 against it. I know that this isn't about counting votes, or democracy or whatever the name they gave it, but it seems a bit to risky to do that with a template used at 3084 pages and with some serious technical issues raised by some users. Maybe an admin should take a look. Best regards, Bertdrunk (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
No admin really required as the practical merger would take multiple people to enact. The only real objections were 'its too complicated' and 'it affects a lot of pages' which are not particularly strong arguments. Its technically feasible, the templates are extremely similar. By argument alone, the 'merge' votes had stronger arguments going for them. Countering good strong arguments for merging with 'its too complicated' is not really a rebuttal. Likewise 'it affects many articles' is not an issue if the merge was done correctly and tested extensively before being rolled out. Both things which are within the skillset of the infobox gnomes to achieve. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have notified Primefac of this discussion. --Izno (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I concur with Only in death after having looked at the TfD. Most of the Opposes are actually opposes to a perceived redirect, which never was the object of the TfD. Good call by Primefac - I guess some admins might have not taken the time to look at the details of the discussion. Agathoclea (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that was a fair close. There were a lot of poor quality arguments raised in opposition to the merge - in particular the desire to retain distinctive elements for former countries is entirely compatible with merging, and things like the article count aren't relevant if the merge is done correctly. Three people opposing the merge didn't offer a rationale at all. There were a few comments outlining more substantial objections to the merge, such as Frietjes and Rob984, but those were distinctly in a minority. Hut 8.5 20:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not an admin, but I do a lot of work with templates, including infoboxes. I read the whole discussion and concur with the consensus and the notes above. As stated in the discussion, if it turns out that merging the templates is not technically feasible after some experimentation, the merge will be nullified as unfeasible, and the status quo will prevail. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Template discussions are affected by the weight of the arguments, and as mentioned above there was more weight on merging the two than keeping the status quo simply for the fear that it might not work. I intentionally left the merger open-ended, whereby it could be nullified should the concerns of the opposition not be met (as they are valid concerns), but I've seen (and worked on) plenty of complicated/controversial mergers that turned out perfectly fine in the end; it just required input from multiple editors who were interested in a good final product. I intend on keeping tabs on this merger, and if all goes well those opposed (who aren't involved in the merger) won't even notice if/when the final product is made live. Primefac (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
As a procedural note only, WP:NAC specifically says that controversial decisions and close calls should be left to an administrator. Whether or not it was closed with the correct result, the invocation of {{nac}} here seems like a procedural faux pas. AlexEng(TALK) 00:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
NACs at TfD are very common, and Primefac is one of the most experienced people there. It's much better to have discussions closed by experienced people familiar with the venue and with template issues than to have J. Random Admin do it. (I know this because I was the random admin dragged in once to deal with a backlog, and it was immediately obvious that the non-admin regulars were better and faster than me, which is what led to the adoption of the modified approach to NACs at TfD in the first place.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm certainly not suggesting that NACs at TfD are incorrect or even discouraged. I'm pointing out the fact that WP:NACD and WP:BADNAC both clearly state Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins. Closing an 11-19 discussion in favor of support is both controversial and a close call by any definition—doubly so now that it has actually been challenged. If you disagree or feel that TfD should have an exception, then that should be written into the guideline. AlexEng(TALK) 01:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
While I respect any support vote that was casted in that discussion, I must admit to find disturbing the arguments advanced here, what you people are suggestion is to take away the "discussion" piece of the
"Templates for discussion" and made it a simple yes or no technical feasibility decision. What's the point of discussing it if all the discussion doesn't matter at all? What's even the point of having a place for discussion then? Anyway, I'll update my .txt. Bertdrunk (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Because not all templates and discussions are the same. In this case if the templates were substantially different, arguments they should stay separate would have had more weight. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Whilst discussing on IRC the need for administrators to keep up to date with guideline, policy, and technology changes, Nick suggested an administrators' newsletter, sent monthly, that would update administrators on relevant changes to the encyclopedia. Tonight I threw together the basics for such a newsletter at Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter, with an example for this month. The current plan would be to run this for a few months with users opting in to subscribe, after which we can have a discussion about whether administrators should always receive this, should be able to opt-out, or if it should remain opt-in. Please go and subscribe, and leave any feedback you have on the talk page; I've put a few suggested topics for discussion there. Feel free to go ahead and make changes to any part of the setup, it's quite bare bones right now. Alternatively, if you hate the whole idea, that's fine too. Sam Walton (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
If this is some content that we want to be opt-out instead of opt-in, the list WP:ADMINMMS is fairly current. We rarely use that list, but if there are policy or security issues it is available. (e.g. a new protection level or policy, two-factor authentication changes...). — xaosfluxTalk 21:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
That's useful. We'd probably only want to use it as a starting list though, since I'm open to non-admins signing up for the admin newsletter if they find it useful/interesting. Sam Walton (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Let's hope that it's not what it looks like. It's one thing to write articles that confirm to a set of policies, it's another thing to potentially trigger a dispute between Chile and Argentina... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
If the article was factual, the problem is with the dislike of the facts by the Indonesian trainer, and Wikipedia has nothing to answer for. Relations between countries rise and fall on all sorts of oddities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
You surprise me BMK. If the article is not factual, what then? Had Wibowo still been alive, much of the article would have been zapped as unreferenced, and sources would have been demanded for other stuff in the article. I'm not surprised someone would object to the article. Moriori (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
If the article is not factual, then we make it factual, but taking the lack of factuality of an article on an Internet encyclopedia out on the Australians is a bush league move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
(If that's indeed what happened. In any case, the factuality of our article is our only concern, not how people react to the facts.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
User who opened the new RFC has withdrawn it, and it has been closed. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I closed a contentious RFC regarding the lead image in Johansson's bio today. Since the close, there has been edit warring over the implementation, and an essentially identical RfC has been opened on the talk page, claiming that the original one was unfair. Can I get some extra eyes to resolve the situation? Thanks, Tazerdadog (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It was unfair. Editors placed votes for multiple options. How can a fair consensus be determined when people put their hand up for more than one choice? Rusted AutoParts 01:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This is clearly disruptive. This is an exact duplicate of the previous month-long RFC. Their sole argument (aside from behing unhappy) is that some people voted for more than one image. Totally illogical point as it makes complete sense for people to think two out of five images are appropriate but not prefer one over the other - quite easy to take into account or tally when checking for consensus. They can't dictate the form of opinions people offer on the images in question. I think what is "unfair" is that these two didn't get their way. Also, they have not pinged the editors from the previous RFC, talk about unfair! —DIY Editor (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
My sole reasoning for starting an RFC wasn't because "I didn't have my preferred image" - It was started because IMHO there no consensus on one just yet and IMHO the discussion should've been relisted however instead of letting the edit warring continue I figured I'd start an RFC up again to achieve a better consensus and hopefully more of one instead of a massive divides, I wasn't trying to "overtake that consensus with a new one" it was just more of "I wanted to get a full consensus full stop"
Quite frankly I couldn't careless what image is used - There's been many a times where i've disagreed with something however I'd gone with what the consensus has been however in this case I (and others) don't see the consensus for it - Yes the RFC wording was wrongly worded which I apologise for but as said I see no consensus to use one image over another at the moment,
@DIY Editor: You can't dictate what my motive was for another vote. I strongly disagree voting for more than one choice is fair, in my mind one voter having two votes tallied doesn't make it fair. But I'm deleting the second vote and will wait a few months before reintroducing it. Rusted AutoParts 01:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Surely someone's got a tool to bulk-delete pages; would you let it loose on these ones? Following a CFD, these categories and a lot more are in the middle of being bot-moved to new titles (WP:CFD/W), e.g. "Category:Populated coastal places in Greece" has become "Category:Coastal populated places in Greece". If I remember rightly, we normally delete category names after name-related moves, and unlike the rest of the categories in the list, I've manually checked all of the ones I'm giving you here, so I can assure you that they were all empty a moment ago. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
There are >50000 soft redirect categories....looks like there is not a general "delete them" rule. — xaosfluxTalk 05:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
But don't we normally delete a category after it's been moved like this? The template says Administrators: If this category name is unlikely to be entered on new pages, and all incoming links have been cleaned up, click here to delete. I mean, I have no objection to keeping these or the other ones involved in the CFD; I just don't see the point of keeping them. It seems to be the same thing with the Commons analogue, which says This tag should be used on existing categories that are likely to be used by others, even though the "real" category is elsewhere; I don't see these categories as likely to be used, as they're rather precise, and nobody's going to find them except through normal navigation; this isn't a Category:Colour situation. Nyttend (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend I nuked them all for you using Twinkle batch mode. — xaosfluxTalk 05:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, but please understand that I'm not complaining. Feel free to look at others listed at WP:CFD/W, or you can wait and I'll look through them happily and then report them as round 2. Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend mostly done, there is a small batch at the bottom of that list that contains other links that may need to be worked on. — xaosfluxTalk 05:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! I've removed all but the small batch, given the "Please help keep this page clean!" comment at the top. Maybe Cyde's set it up not to process requests if the page has a lot of already-processed requests on it, as an encouragement to us to keep it clean? Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This sad news has been considered confirmed per this diff. Any further discussion of how the incident was dealt with should ideally be a new thread -- Samtartalk · contribs 16:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have received a message on my talk page about the sudden death of User:JohnCD, an administrator of the English Wikipedia. The message from his son is on my talk page. He was a great contributor to the project and I am sure he will be missed. Donner60 (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
My sincerest condolences to his family, friends and fellow editors. He will truly be missed. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Sad if true, but I'm sorry to ask, is this report trustworthy? We've unfortunately had too many fake death news made by some vandal recently. Fut.Perf.☼ 10:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sincerely questioning whether it's true. The name the IP gave as JohnCD's true name does not appear to be a person who exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
In light of the above, I think it is most inappropriate for people to be posting messages of condolences on JohnCD's talk page when the news hasn't been verified. As noted here, there is an IP going about and claiming all sorts of things. If this is the case and he has died, then it's very, very sad. John was one of the good guys. CassiantoTalk 11:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Cassianto. Donner60, how would you feel if you returned from your Christmas holiday to find someone had baldly stated on your userpage that you were deceased, and apparently hadn't bothered to carry out the most cursory of checks prior to posting it? If this is true it's tragic news, but AGF doesn't extend to assuming that every comment posted by an IP is true—virtually all high-profile editors, particularly admins involved in blocking or deletion who tend to attract a lot of enemies, have had claims of one kind or another made about them at some point. ‑ Iridescent 11:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Cassianto as well. The IP, who posted the message to Donner60's talk page, also created Draft:John Cameron Deas. Should we delete it until confirmation materializes? Favonian (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Have deleted the draft article, as a) article space is not the right place for memorials, and b) the key information is at present unconfirmed and poses privacy issues. There will be plenty of opportunity to recreate this as a post on their user page if/when confirmation is received. Have also left the IP a message letting them know. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed I am embarrassed by my apparent gullibility (rather than appropriate good faith) on this. I hope that everyone will understand that I thought I was doing the right thing to provide notice. I did not know about the fake death news vandal, which of course would have made me wary. I did not think about the possibility that someone would make up a fake name so the fact that a name was presented led me to give the report some credit. I saw no history on the IP talk page, which I checked to see if it might be someone who was trying to gain some sort of revenge on me or on JohnCD. Of course, I now realize someone who was up to no good and was the least bit clever would have not made the mistake of using the same IP address. I now realize I should have waited for a short time or a few days and thought about this. I also should have asked a few people for advice and only informed a few people while asking for that help. Someguy1221 seems to have been able to check this and provides a basis for rejecting the report. That seems to be good or hopeful news.
I am glad that I referred to the message on my talk page rather than just posting a notice. This has given those who have seen the possible problem a chance to be advised of the basis for the report and to inject a note of skepticism; indeed to do an investigation.
I have been a user for several years and have tried my best to avoid drama and controversy though I suppose a few small glitches might be found in my history. This seems to have been an epic fail after all that time. My skepticism will be increased quite by this incident a bit though I may just shrink away in embarrassment over this. Your chastisements of me are well deserved but I hope you will understand I am most upset by likely being taken in and my mortification by the strong rebukes simply adds to the distress. Frankly, though, I will be most happy if the reports prove false and we find out that JohnCD is fine.
I hope the community can accept my sincere apology for apparently being taken in by this. I can only say that I will not be repeating the mistake if that it is. I will ping those who I notified through my talk page, correspond with Nyttend about this and post this on the Village Pump miscellaneous page if no one has adequately cover this. Since I keep odd hours, and ironically have some real life commitments over the next few days, I will be checking in only briefly and infrequently for a few days and not for quite a few hours just now. Donner60 (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Donner60, I think you are being far too hard yourself here. Everyone can see it was a simple mistake made inYou have acted in perfectly good faith and with totally sincere motives. Many of us might well have done exactly the same. Your actions have been fully vindicated. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC) p.s. just a procedural question - in cases like these is it appropriate to email the User concerned to try and disprove this eventuality? He had posted a "away until about 7th January" wikibreak notice and his email link still seems to be enabled.
Agreed, Donner60, don't be too hard on yourself. Sadly, your gut instincts have proven accurate. I've removed JohnCD's administrative privileges per a request to BN. My condolences to family and friends. –xenotalk 14:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand more than one person has emailed already. I also think it's too early to suggest that the news is false. There's nothing obviously fake, and the IP's geolocation checks out (as do some other things). Sadly, only time will tell. Ironically, John's userpage talks about his favourite wiki activity - demolishing hoaxes. He would be glad if some research is done before anything hasty. -- zzuuzz(talk) 12:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Someguy1221 seems to be mistaken about the non-existence of a person of that name. This confirms the birth of such a person in the year supplied by the IP. So does Findmypast, which I can't link to. Struway2 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I was about to point out that JohnCD's userpage says he lives in North West England, and the IP geolocates to there as well. That's a fairly unlikely coincidence. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Until this is bottomed out, might I suggest some protection of JohnCD's talk page? The IP, whoever it is, is still posting there and has now taken to posting to mine. When confirmation is received then the pp can be lifted and my collapse can be reverted. CassiantoTalk 13:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Cassianto, can I suggest not calling the IP a troll until this has been worked out? If this is genuine, then that's the last thing a grieving person needs. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
You can suggest it, yes, but if someone accuses me of "acting in ill-faith" for collapsing the "obituary" on John's talk and then comes to my talk page to teach me the error of my ways, then I shall treat them with a certain amount of disdain. There are ways of doing things and picking fights with me is not the way to do it. CassiantoTalk 13:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The IP wrote that you were "making accusations of ill faith", which is different to suggesting that you were acting in ill-faith yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
"Acting in ill-faith" is the same as "making accusations of ill faith". You are exhibiting "ill-faith" whether it be written or physical. It's worrying how you appear to think the two are so different; but never let that get in the way of beating me up about something. Anyway carrying this on now, in light of Keri's confirmation, is highly inappropriate, so I suggest we stop. CassiantoTalk 16:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I was just correcting a misperception - that the IP had accused you of acting in bad faith; they hadn't. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
You have added to your comment since I replied. I won't edit my reply, but suffice to say that I don't think that the editor was accusing you of acting in bad faith. The IP reported his father's death, it was suggested that that report could be a hoax, and the IP responded by writing that their report was treated as if it was made in bad faith. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
If a son informs about his Father's death and you use edit summary "Says who?", then it's normal for him to feel offended. I understand that you were right in your own way, as we need some proof about serious information, but the IP who was Robert was also right. MarvellousSpider-Man 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I must've forgotten to channel into my sixth sense this morning. How careless of me. In the circumstances, I don't see what is wrong with me asking "who says" with regards to such controversial news. I think some just like being offended for the sake of it. CassiantoTalk 16:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hailing from the same neck of the woods as John, I have today spoken directly to his family and can confirm this very sad news is not a hoax. Keri (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why are block templates like {{Anonblock hard}} not indef semi-prot as a general principle? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably because policy frowns on pre-emptive protection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Good call - I've just protected this one, please tell me if you find any more. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu —Preceding undated comment added 14:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Someone just found {{nao}} – protected that one, now… Κσυπ Cyp 19:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Great, the answer was that we don't automatically protect all templates, and now you guys started protecting them. :) Debresser (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
See WP:PTPROT; pages in most namespaces normally don't get protected as a precaution, but the disruption possible with templates is such that pre-emptive protection is specifically authorised for them. In case anyone's curious, I've revdeleted the edit to NAO, not because it was something that needed to be kept private, but because of the degree of disruption: the entire contents were a massive number of File:Emblem-important.svg at ten thousand pixels, and it crashed my browser, so I didn't want anyone else to have that happen without knowing what was coming. If anyone seriously has a reason to view the contents, I can unrevdelete it, but be aware of what might happen. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
One case where we do protect templates before any trouble occurs is highly visible templates; to the best of my understanding, this includes any template which is used for a current block. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 22:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere
– this is not a subject of general interest to admins and does not seem to require admin intervention at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Why? If you are arguing over content why have you not opened a discussion on the talk page? (From taking a quick look, I dont think it is an advertisement. There are probably a few overly promotional statements that could be tweaked, but nothing I would worry too much about) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussion can and should continue at the relevant page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Having witnessed many (and participated in some) Wikidata-related discussions recently, I have the intention to have an RfC on Wikidata usage on enwiki (with the intention to create an up-to-date policy or guideline). Before this can start, I believe it is best to have a preliminary state of affairs to base the RfC discussion on. With that in mind, I have created Wikipedia:Wikidata/2017 State of affairs.
Everyone is invited to contribute their knowledge of Wikidata on enwiki there. I have explained the purpose of the page at the top of it, but it is not my page so feel free to change that as well of course. I just hope that we can restrict the page to what is and what has already happened, and leave the "what should happen" for the future RfC. Fram (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Before it gets too far along, would this not be better located somewhere at the Village Pump? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Eventually probably. This appears to be a prelim notification - there is one at the pump as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with figuring out what's going on with Wikidata before going further, but there are so many basic Wikidata questions left unanswered that another RfC probably isn't useful yet. In particular, the verifiability of Wikidata information is highly suspect, usually only citing some obscure foreign language Wikipedia. Until Wikidata is sourced from reliable sources, it seems highly unlikely the community will find any broad consensus for its use that goes to the level of a guideline or policy. ~ Rob13Talk 15:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Well its a good thing I added precisely that point just now then isnt it :P I expect Iridescent will have something to say when he wakes up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just curious about 2018 Canadian Figure Skating Championships. It was created almost a year ago with nothing but a generic infobox and hasn't been edited since then. It seems to be some kind of place holder for future editing, but I'm not sure whether that's something acceptable in the article namespace. Article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion per WP:A3, but I'm wondering if something like this should be left as is or be brought to AfD. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
There is currently no info on the Championships, and for example the 2014 edition was announced in December 2012. I would expect that the location and timing of the 2016 championship might be announced pretty soon, but of course if you want to nominate the article for AfD you can do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It could also be redirected to Canadian Figure Skating Championships until more information is released. It's not farfetched that someone might search it. ansh666 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter and Ansh666: Thank you both for taking a look at this. I think Ansh666 suggestion makes sense per WP:CHEAP and is probably what would be suggested if I were to take this to AfD. I am assuming that such a redirect would be uncontroversial since the alternatives options are either (1) an article with no content or (2) no article at all. Technically, this should be a simple case of WP:BLAR, right? -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That is correct. Glad I could help. ansh666 05:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ymblanter and Ansh666: I've redirected the article as suggested above. Would either of you mind taking a look at it to make sure I did not miss anything? One thing I wasn't sure about was whether the talk page also needed to be redirected. No talk page existed, so I just left it as is. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This is perfectly fine, thanks @Marchjuly:. I personally think that redirects of talk pages are a waste of editors'time and of space on the servers since they do not serve any purpose, when I redirect pages myself I speedy delete redirects of talk pages. There is certainly no need to create a talk page redirect if the talk page did not exist.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Already being dealt with at MFD, if it stays open see WP:ANRFC. — xaosfluxTalk 22:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not done It looks like something, possibly this notice, has spurred forther conversation there and it would be best to give previous particpants time to respond. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Backlog was cleared. — xaosfluxTalk 22:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Any chance one of you wonderful ladies and gentlemen could pop by UAA? There are reports over 40 hours old thete. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am requesting administrative attention to the title of this page, to its lede sentence, and to its content in general. There is a history of Requests for Comments and Requested Moves, concerning whether the subject is a dialect of Punjabi, a language variety of Punjabi, a language, or more than one of these at the same time. It appears to me that some of the participants in these conflicts have difficulty in stating their position and difficulty in understanding policies and procedures in the English Wikipedia because their command of English is limited. I became aware of the conflict on 13 December when one of the editors filed a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_145#Saraiki_dialect. Discussion was difficult, and eventually the DRN thread was closed on 21 December as resolved by a previous RFC. Since then I have received requests on my talk page for assistance, but I have difficulty understanding them. I see from the template at the top of Talk:Saraiki dialect that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are available, presumably under India-Pakistan arbitration. I haven’t researched the status of Saraiki in detail, but I see that language scholars have discussed its status on the dialect continuum in depth without a final resolution. (Thanks to User:Paine Ellsworth for a thoughtful closure.) My own thought is only that the lede sentence should agree with the title rather than contradicting it, and that the controversy should then be dealt with (as it is) in the body of the article. The lede currently states that it is a language, although the title characterizes it as a dialect.
Administrative attention is requested, but administrators should be aware that some of the editors seem to have extreme difficulty in communicating in written English. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
FWIW the "some accounts" are all just one prolific sockmaster. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert. I've been handling that socking for a while now, as has Bbb23, the page is under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions and the talk page has been tagged as such. At this point, after semi protecting the talk page, the discussion is between good faith editors. I don't think any admin action is required at this point unless it's to block any fresh socks. —SpacemanSpiff 00:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
And that's the sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Robert McClenon: This is a content dispute which was decided as dialect by 2 move requests, 1 move review 1 mediation request, 1 Talk page consensus (in 2013), 1 RFC and 2 Dispute resolutions. If my IP series was used by LanguageXpert in 2012 that is not as much rule violation than not accepting decisions of all such WP discussions. Rule should be same for all. Here system is supporting a user Uanfala who is not ready to accept any rule any moderator and talk page consensus. Please restore 1 October pre-dispute version as per rules. 39.60.199.14 (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC) I WANT JUSTICE
ToRobert McClenon, SpacemanSpiff and other administrators on the board: I agree with Robert McClenon that something must be done. A lot of good work is being done with sockpuppets; however, in this case I've seen little that can be described as definitive. Words like "likely" and "possilikely" say to me that we cannot be certain that what we have isn't a public computer, such as that found in a library, used by several editors who don't have a good handle on the English language. More to the point is the disposition of the title of the Saraiki dialect article. I closed a requested move in October as Not moved, which went to Move review and was endorsed, and now here we are less than three months later with yet another requested move for pretty much the same thing. The present move request, which has just been closed as "No consensus", should have been closed procedurally because it was opened long before it should have been. A "No consensus" close will just say to involved editors that they can come back in two or three months and try again, while the "Not moved" close made in October should have meant that the next requested move to the same page title should wait much longer. Since I just noticed the "No consensus" close, I guess I should take that to Move review to have it changed to "Procedural close", but I'll wait a bit to see what ya'll say. Paine Ellsworthu/c 16:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I consider this to have been a valid move request. There is no formal six month waiting period for moves and a glance at the changes to the article since the last request show a very different article with more and better referencing. The correct procedure going forward is for someone to reopen the move request with a more focused title suggestion (as the closer has suggested). --regentspark (comment) 17:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
And, frankly, I find your comments on the socks and the entire SPI process incomprehensible. While, in this case, the socks couldn't be more obvious had they arrived preceded by a band playing "Here Comes the Sock", more generally the SPI process relies on likely and possibility because, of course, it is never impossible that someone else has used a particular computer or IP. --regentspark (comment) 17:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Sockpuppets who can't write in English are a double waste of time. I think that we need a notice that overly quick move requests now will be dealt with by topic-bans under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that a notice is the way to go, because frankly, the editors involved thus far have only the article's best interests in mind, even though some of their tactics are very questionable. Paine Ellsworthu/c 17:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment - I think that if anybody has a conduct issue here it is Paine Ellsworth. After closing the previous move request reasonably, but prefixed by WP:OR comments unreasonably, they became heavily involved and essentially sabotaged the latest move request. This is not the behaviour expected of an experienced editor. If they have a position on the issue, they should take it and leave the other people alone to have their own say.
As for the issue raised by Robert McClenon, the lead paragraph seems to reflect the current consensus among the reliable sources. If that seems to contradict the page title, I think it has more to do our own damaged consensus process on Wikipedia. Nobody is stopping the pro-dialect camp from bringing their own sources and editing the text accordingly. I don't see why this should be an issue for admin attention.
(disclaimer) I am an uninvolved editor here. I have this page on my watch list merely because it is sock-infested and needs attention from time to time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
CommentThe correct procedure going forward is for someone to reopen the move request with a more focused title suggestion. This means starting a new RM, right? What would be the ideal timeframe then? – Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Six months to a year, I think. You saw how little participation there was in the last round. Nothing will be achieved by filing any request any time soon. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, the closer of the RM has self-reverted, so the discussion is open again. Should it stay so? If yes, then I think there's definitely a need for some refactoring. As an involved party, it's not appropriate for me to do that, so any volunteers? I'd be happy for any number of my comments there to be collapsed away from view, the more the better. – Uanfala (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Well. I went ahead and collapsed the comments by the socks [44]. I think the same should be done with the entire exchange between me and Paine Ellsworth (though Amakuru and Kautilya3 were briefly involved too) that happened right after Kautilya3's !vote. There's some bickering on my part there, as well as clarifications of misunderstandings that I don't see as contributing much to the general discussion. If no-one of the involved editors objects, then I'll proceed to collapse that as well (which should be acceptable per what I understand of WP:REFACTOR). – Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Ideally, someone - preferably an uninvolved admin - should close the 'procedural' part. (I've added my comment at the end.) Collapsing the discussion between you and Paine Ellsworth would require their agreement so, if you do collapse it, let them know on their talk page. --regentspark (comment) 13:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I am good with how that part of the discussion within the RM was closed (but not collapsed). I've said all that needs to be said and nothing needs to be repeated. If editors in this case decide to ignore community consensus and WP:IAR, then there is no more I can do about it. And I hope all are happy with the precedent this sets. We can probably expect to see more of this at Hindko dialect. Happy New Year to all! Paine Ellsworthu/c 17:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, hopefully, someone will look in on this discussion, because there appear to be several editors who are in agreement to omit the natural disambiguator, "dialect", in favor of the ambiguous Saraiki bare title, which may apply to several articles as seen on the dab page. It has not passed the test for primary topic, which might also be given to the Saraiki people article. It is my contention that the proposer, who has edit warred in that article and at Hindko dialect, yet another page the proposer wants to change to Hindko language, wants the changed title to "Saraiki" just so they can come back a little later and start another RM to complete the change to Saraiki language. The proposer is using baby steps to get what they want. Please put a stop to that out-of-process move request that goes sharply against the community consensus that has shaped the instructions at WP:NOTMOVED. Paine Ellsworthu/c 17:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed – it will really be helpful if more editors participated, as there's definitely a need for a broad consensus to end the controversies. – Uanfala (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Uanfala – your "agreed" tells me that I may have not made myself clear. I am asking here for administrative intervention to put a stop to your out-of-process move request. In other words, I am asking administrators for a "procedural close". Are you sure you agree? Paine Ellsworthu/c 04:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
There was a sub-discussion about the validity of the RM and it was closed a week ago. – Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure the administrators know that. This AN request/discussion is still open, however. Perhaps this is a good time for you to end the puzzlement and say why you opened a new RM so soon after the previous one, fully knowing that a new RM should wait a considerable time before being opened? Or were you unaware of that? And now, thanks to that closed validity discussion, now that you are aware that your request is out of process and against community consensus, are you now willing to withdraw the request? Paine Ellsworthu/c 15:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The sock speaketh again
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree with Paine Ellsworth. This user is also destroying other relevant dialect continuum such as Hindi[45], example [46]. Every dialect is language for him. Cant we ban such non linguistic user from editing linguistic pages ? Is there any option ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showermixer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The RM has now been closed in a way that gets me scratching my head [47]. I don't think it's right that everyone's time has ended up having been wasted because of what appears like a minor technical quibble. What do we do, Amakuru, RegentsPark? – Uanfala (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@BD2412:. Most likely BD2412 has missed the pointer in Talk:Saraiki that says that the discussion is taking place at Talk:Saraiki (dialect). If a closer finds consensus to move, then it is fairly clear that the article would move to Saraiki and Saraiki would move to Saraiki (disambiguation). If the closer finds no consensus to move then the entire thing is moot anyway. But a procedural close at this points is, at best, overly bureaucratic. Perhaps BD2412 would consider re-evaluating their close? Since the close is purely procedural, we could always start a new request but, given the volume of time everyone has already spent on this, that doesn't seem particularly productive. --regentspark (comment) 02:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
It is not at all clear from the discussion that there is a consensus that the language is the primary topic of the term. What people think about the use of "dialect" or "language" or some other disambiguator is not relevant to that point, which is a point that needs to be resolved before the existing disambiguation page can be moved. I therefore also do not think that another discussion would be a waste of time, as editors would merely restate their views on the use of "dialect" and also consider whether some other disambiguating term was appropriate. For those who have already participated, it would take very little time to present a view on this. Discussions like these are only time consuming for the few editors who find it worth their time to litigate every point to exhaustion. bd2412T 02:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Your summary above, honestly, makes little sense to me since almost no one is arguing that the language is the primary topic. But if that's what you've gathered from the discussion, then so be it. Uanfala, I guess you have to reopen another move request with two moves: Saraiki (dialect) to Saraiki and Saraiki to Saraiki (disambiguation). Alternatively, you could take this to a move review (WP:RM/R) and see what happens there but a move request may be the easier of the two. --regentspark (comment) 03:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm really not willing to be dealing with this anymore. Would anyone like to take the initiative now? Amakuru, Kautilya3, RegentsPark? – Uanfala (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know really, Uanfala. I will be brutally honest here, and say that like BD2412 I never found the primary topic argument especially persuasive (and apologies to BD2412 for questioning the close on that basis). We don't normally label a language primary topic over the people that speak it, where an ethnicity and a language share the same name, and the reasons for doing so here were much more to do with striking a "compromise" and to at least remove the POV word "dialect" from the title even if consensus couldn't be gathered for a switch to "language", than a genuine belief that the article was primary. However, having gone through this exercise, it has become ever more clear to me that the majority of sources tell us that it's considered a language by the people themselves, and by the international community. I probed deeply to be shown some sources, academic or otherwise, which explictly told us it's a dialect, but I didn't see any. So given BD2412's permission above to continue discussing the language qusetion, I think we should have one more try at moving to Saraiki language. Even if the usual people turn up and try to shout the move down again, with the weight of Kautilya3's reliable source evidence, I think it's an argument that could be won. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue should be discussed on the talk page and, in my view, most people are misinterpreting the guidelines. The guidance asks you to consider how likely it is that when somebody searches for "Saraiki" they are searching for the language rather than the people. The guidelines have been interpreted correctly in deciding Kannada and Malayalam, but incorrectly for Telugu and possibly Tamil. (For Hindu and Urdu, the issue never arose.) As far as I can see, "Saraiki" is similar to those. I don't see any evidence that Saraiki is the name of a people. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
To editor Uanfala: time was wasted only by those who think it was wasted. So "everyone's" does not really apply, Uanfala. This is just another case where you make a hasty generalization. Rather than give up, though, or rather than a new RM, you might consider a discussion where objective, uninvolved editors will come in and make their assessment. Here I speak of a request-for-comment type of discussion that might lead to a new RM down the road, or might not. While I have since October thought you were wrong about changing "dialect" to "language" in these articles, I have also thought that, since I am not a linguist and try only to go with those scientists, I could still very well be wrong. Your argument has garnered strong support, such as that of Amakuru and others, so there really is no telling how a well-formed RfC might turn out. There are other options. However, I would strongly recommend that you consider continuing such a discussion in RfC form so as to gather objective opinions on the matter. Paine Ellsworthu/c 17:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Starting an RfC would make sense if the RM discussion were inconclusive, or if there wasn't enough participation. But the RM was widely advertised, and it received more participation than most of the language-related RMs and RfCs I've seen so far. I'm not sure I unserstand what you mean for editors to be "objective" in this case, Paine Ellsworth. If it's about being uninvolved – as far as I remember, apart from you, me and the sheriff, everyone else in the discussion was uninvolved.
As for RegentsPark and Amakuru's suggestions for starting a new RM, I think it would come across as somewhat silly to ask all the participants if they could please come back and restate what they had already said. And at any rate, I don't believe this is likely to elicit much of a response.
All the above options would make sense if the RM had been inconclusive. But inconclusive it was not – I should stand corrected if I'm wrong, but I see a clear consensus for moving to Saraiki, and the primary topic arguments, even if hidden inside walls of text, are clear and compelling. In my view, this is a case where a more review is by far the most reasonable way forward, and the one that is likely to place the least workload on the community. But I might be wrong as I don't know these processes very well, so if anyone thinks this might not be the best option, they should speak out. Absent any further input, I will start one in a couple of days. – Uanfala (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, to answer your question about objectivity, it is explained at the RfC link I gave you:
The RfC process uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors.
That is how objective opinions are obtained. If you want to take the close decision to MR, then that is also a choice, but it has been recommended that more discussion is needed in order to reach a consensus on the matter. So I still think that an RfC would be superior to a Move review discussion. It's your choice, of course, and whatever you choose, I wish you a Happy New Year and the best of everything to you and yours! Paine Ellsworthu/c 15:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
A Aa movie USA collection was set as wrong, please make the correction as per the same source which is mentioned presently.
Just for your information to provide correct information for public.
@Rafishaik1379: This is the Administrators Noticeboard for the English Wikipedia, but that article is on the Simple English Wikipedia. If you want to suggest a change to that article you can do so at its talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Problem faced due to sharing of the same IP address[edit]
Hello, I was blocked for a day on wikipedia. The reason was stated that I share the same IP address with another account.I would want to find a long-lasting solution to this issue. I happen to be in a building with a shared network and a lot of people use the common internet that is provided. Evidently many of them would be using Wiki from the same IP and I would be facing the same problem in regular intervals. I would request someone to help me and give me a permanent solution to this blockage. I have uploaded this previously too but have not heard a response from anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella.black678 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
We do have the technical ability to do this, see Wikipedia:IP block exemption. However, I'm not sure you qualify. If you ever find an issue at any time, you can request to have the autoblock removed while within your account. If such requests get acepted often, that would tend to be a clear sign of needing an IPBE. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
You could also request that the IP block be changed to non-logged-in users only, but we would need the address. — xaosfluxTalk 13:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Just saw User:Jxu_certona/sandbox this during page patrols. The actual text says they're testing the api without logging in
This user was just created today
so it's rather interesting that they already know about the API and are testing it. Second , they have more than one sub page with the same text on it.
Although I'd like to AGF on this user, I would have difficulty thinking of a reason why a new user would know and want to test the API's write ability (per their description ) without logging in except to create mischief.
Perhaps some admin eyes would be good on this user . KoshVorlon} 19:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe they are an external developper/programmer/contractor who has not edited Wikipedia before but had a good reason for testing APIs (Wikipedia's or otherwise); "new Wikipedia user" doesn't "new Internet user". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Nothing actionable yet. ~ Rob13Talk 13:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I saw | this and reverted it I realize this is an IP editor, but it's not their first edit, the edit summary shows intent and the entry itself is a BDP/BLP ( he still has relatives and parents still alive). I'd suggest a block for this editor. KoshVorlon} 16:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Can just be blocked under Vandalism surely? (Its not technically a BDP due to dying in 1990. The part of BDP "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends" is dependant on the time past their death - and 17 years is way past the reasonable limit for that) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually he has a sister, who's very much alive, so BDP would still apply. I realize we can't block just based on feelings alone, however, to me, that act of vandalism was no different than if they'd vandalized a black man's entry with the "N" word. KoshVorlon} 17:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
There were two IPs doing it. I've blocked both for 31 hours and I've rev-deleted the offensive content. I'll protect if I see it continue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is an active RM on the article's talk page, and OP has acknowledged that if he had known it was a formal RM then he would not have moved the page. Closing at OP's request. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 09:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am requesting a review of Bradv's conduct using the page mover right. I believe that he has abused the privilege, by making a round-robin move in which the creation a redirect was suppressed, to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. This is explicitly prohibited by policy as explained at WP:Page mover#Page move disputes and WP:Page mover#Criteria for revocation.
Today, I reverted the page title back to the original Donald Trump Russia dossier
Bradv reverted the page title back to Donald Trump-Russia dossier using his page mover right to suppress a redirect for a round-robin move.
I'm not that concerned about the title, and perhaps I should have blindly obeyed the article template that says don't move the page. What I am concerned about is Bradv's use of the page mover right in a content dispute, and his unwillingness to understand why that was wrong.- MrX 19:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
There is an active requested move discussion on this page. MrX moved the page after the discussion started, which invalidated all of the oppose votes, including my own, and rendered the entire discussion moot. Several editors had already voted in favour of the current title—MrX had already voted to move the page.
This was obvious case of an inappropriate move, and it needed to be fixed. I will concede that I could have waited for an uninvolved editor or administrator to move it back, but at the time I didn't think it would be contentious and I didn't see the need to bother anyone. I also left a very civil edit summary, asking MrX to wait for the discussion to conclude.
It should also be noted that I did not need to use the 'suppress redirects' flag here—as there was only one revision in the history it would have been trivial to move it normally. Furthermore, MrX also has the page mover right, so he should know better than to move pages while they are under discussion. (Also, he neglected to move subpages, so that needed to be fixed anyway.)
I have been asked to revert my move, but if I did that it would cause further disruption to the requested move discussion. My suggestion to MrX was to wait until the discussion concludes. Bradv 19:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The log says: "16:40, January 18, 2017 Bradv (talk | contribs) moved page Donald Trump–Russia dossier to Draft:Move/Donald Trump Russia dossier without leaving a redirect (Round-robin history swap step 1 using pageswap)"
That can only be done with the advance user right. Note also that I did not use the added functions of the page mover right to when I moved the page.- MrX 19:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, but as I said, I did not need to use that right. The fact that I chose to use the PageSwap.js feature rather than moving it manually was merely a matter of convenience. Bradv 19:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The documentation for PageSwap says "Users who are unable to suppressredirect or move-subpages have the swap functionality disabled." If you use automated tools, you have to understand what they do.- MrX 19:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand, you moved a page in middle of a discussion and when reverted you complain? Something is not computing. Sir Joseph(talk) 19:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
A page move war over a dash. Sigh. And again with the pounding of the revert buttons. My recommendation is that people not move pages during the ongoing move discussion, period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
And if they do, what's the recommended course of action? The alternative was to close the discussion, or notify everyone that opposed the move so they could change their vote. What should I have done? Bradv 19:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It probably would have been best to leave it; at most, make a note of it in the discussion and then carry on discussing. There was no desperate need for it to be fixed, it would have been fixed eventually. Consensus resulting from the discussion would override a bold and undiscussed move that occurred while the discussion was ongoing, and a discussion about what the proper title for this article is should be able to reach a logical conclusion no matter what the current title is. Moving a page that's in the middle of a move discussion is a pretty disruptive thing to do, whether MrX meant for it to be or not, but move-warring is far more disruptive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Think the consensus is that everyone thinks it should be named something different. Probably best for all sides to avoid renaming it back or forth until at least two people agree on what to call it. I'd prefer (Donald Trump)-Russia dossier, but it shouldn't be moved there until everyone agrees. Κσυπ Cyp 22:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
When I moved the page, I was aware of what I thought was an informal discussion of a title change (which turns out to have been proposed by a sock). Had I realized that it had become a formal RM, I would not have moved the page. I think the various points that have been made here have been received, so this can be closed as far as I'm concerned. - MrX 00:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I observe (and including the willfully disobedient gallery) that if we follow your plan (No action taken while an active discussion is hapening) this gives anybody who opposes a change the battleground playbook to tendentiously prevent a change. Don't like a change, get a friend to oppose and force a consensus discussion, shortly before the discussion closes, you force a new consensus discussion on a slightly varried theme that is predicated on the first consensus discussion being resolved that the change be accepted. It would have been better to forcibly fold the second proposal (hyphen vs endash wars again?) into the first and establish a unified consensus. Also it would have been good to have a moratorium on "calling the question" for a few weeks so new arguments/proposals have time to mature under the established principle of "Consensus can change". Hasteur (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Or you forcibly revert ad nauseam, as is today's playbook for obstructionism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I always thought that there was a proscription against removing block notices while blocked, but I can't find anything in guidelines. Is that true, and if so, where is it? SpinningSpark 15:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:BLANKING: "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block." So the block notice itself can be removed (as it'll still appear in the block log), but if there is a denied unblock notice, that cannot be removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
...until or unless the block expires or is lifted. :) --64.85.216.175 (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
More sockpuppetry detected in addition to the original problems. Nobody is interested in unblocking. Sandstein 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Going by Bullaful (talk·contribs)'s most recent post on his talk page, it may be that he would like a review of his block. I recognized Bullaful as Enthusiast01 (talk·contribs), who was formerly known as Ewawer, a longtime Wikipedian who was often productive. (If someone thinks it's a good idea for a CheckUser to make sure that I was correct in my identification, please do. I recognize that even though I am usually correct in identifying socks, I can be wrong. I very much doubt that I am wrong in this case, but technical data supporting the identification wouldn't hurt.) Diannaa blocked Enthusiast01 for copyright issues. When I recognized Bullaful, I suggested that he consider appealing his block instead of using a new account; I also asked Diannaa on her talk page if she would consider unblocking the Enthusiast01 account; it seems she said no. Full discussion seen here. After Bullaful admitted to being Enthusiast01, Diannaa blocked the new account as well. On his talk page, Bullaful argued the following after the block:
Bullaful's argument
What the hell is happening to Wikipedia? When I first starting editing way back when I as well as other editors were encouraged to WP:be bold, on the proviso that if the editor went too far, the edit would be reverted or fixed. I have spent many, many, many hours of my time making good faith edits to enhance the standing and quality of Wikipedia articles. But, now a new breed of administrators seem to have taken over, whose guiding principle is to show who is the boss. Instead of encouraging good faith editing and reverting or fixing edits which may have crossed the line, the main approach is increasingly to block accounts and make repeated threats of dire consequences. It feels like the encouragement of good faith editing and courtesy is becoming old fashioned. Now. Diannaa is going one step further, threatening to blanket delete and revert all edits made by me, whether made in good faith or without regard to any merit. I have spent many of my hours on Wikipedia edits, and it would be such a waste if all of that was now to be dumped because of the bloody-mindedness of one administrator.
Let me also take this opportunity to say to Diannaa that I am conscious of the meaning and significance of copyright and the consequences of its violation (BTW - I was a lawyer in another life) and have respect for it. I also appreciate her (I assume Diannaa is a her) efforts in keeping edits on the right side of copyright. I do have regrets for having crossed over the copyright line, and attribute it to starting to do a major edit but having to rush off to do other things in the real world, and having to "Save" WIP as a temporary step, intending to come back to finish the tidy up very soon, but being caught short. Bullaful (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
The appeal could perhaps spend less time accusing other people of bad practices and more explaining what their understanding of copyright is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
If he wishes to get unblocked what he needs to do is explain to us how copyright law applies to Wikipedia editing and how he proposes to do better in the future. I'm not seeing that in this post. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
If this is an appeal, I'm an apple tart. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I left a rather long comment that may remind them of the ramifications of clicking save. If it mollifies them somewhat so we don't lose their future contributions then all the better. Blackmane (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Enthusiast101 is stale, but since this is an unblock appeal and there's already been evidence of socking, I ran CheckUser. Bullaful is also editing as Rogr101(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log); actually, Rogr101 is the older account, so it's the master. If there's any doubt about the technical evidence (and there isn't any) this is awfully damning. Rogr101 has been indef blocked, and I don't see any sleeper accounts. Katietalk 04:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
KrakatoaKatie (Katie), as seen with this link, I identified Rogr101 as an Ewawer sock as well. I remember commenting about it on Dennis Brown's talk page, but it was dropped after that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
My point, Flyer, is that he's already evading an indefinite block. The link you gave is four years old. If you had already identified Rogr101 as a sock, you should have listed it here. I'm not going to seriously consider an unblock request from someone who simply wants one of his sockpuppets unblocked so he can resume doing what he wants to do in violation of just about every policy we have against block evasion. He has three accounts that we know of and now wants to edit from two of them? Nope. Katietalk 13:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Katie, going by what I stated on Ewawer's talk page and to Dennis Brown four years ago, I clearly was not sure if Ewawer knew about the WP:Socking policy and whether or not the Rogr101 account was a WP:Clean start account. After all, he was not as familiar with Wikipedia's rules as I was (he still isn't), and it did appear that he had dropped the Ewawer account to edit as Rogr101. He stopped using the Rogr101 account after I identified him. He did not start to use it again until December 4, 2016 at 03:45. His Ewawer account had been blocked by Diannaa months before December. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - the user should probably read WP:NOTTHEM and be sure to understand and respond to the reason of the block (copyright issues are one of the most serious types of problems here). עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 04:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
See here. I think that Ewawer would like to be unblocked so that he comment in this thread. Ewawer is the oldest account, so maybe unblock that one to make his case in this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This post shows a good understanding of what our expectations are from a copyright point of view. I will ask him at User talk:Bullaful if he is also prepared to stop socking and if he will make that commitment I will unblock his original account (User:Enthusiast01) if nobody has any objections. As always, I will scrutinize the user's edits daily to watch for further copyright violations. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Update: So far Bullaful/Enthusiast01 has not responded to my unblock conditions. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Any chance a CheckUser can look for sleepers? @Bbb23 and DoRD:? Blackmane (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As noted above, KrakatoaKatie ran a check a bit over a week ago, so I'm not sure that there is any value in running another one just yet. —DoRD (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Weak oppose mostly because of the sockpuppetry. The unblock request does seem to indicate that the user understands what copyright is, but doesn't yet understand that you can't save a copyright-violating edit at all, ever, even if you're planning to come back to fix it later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The diff Dianaaa linked above, a response to a post I made on Bullafull's TP, is, from a good faith persepctive, probably sufficient to indicate that they understand that copyright vio's cannot be temporarily saved. However, given that there has been no activity for some time, in response or as socks, makes it hard to see where the unblock discussion can go. I would suggest that this discussion be parked pending some response from them. Blackmane (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Redirect request declined. Sandstein 17:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please make a page that redirects 🕷👨 to Spider-Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie Faxx (talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Could an admin please take a look at this user's edit's? I've made the relevant AIV report, but it turns out he's been creating crap redirects all over the place, which need deleting. GoldenRing (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I think "crap redirects all over the place" is something of an exaggeration. I've deleted several implausible ones, and one other is at WP:RFD, but I'm not seeing a big problem here from an editor who has made only a little over 20 edits in six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
🕷👨 remains a redlink. GoldenRing (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@Richie Faxx: That isn't a plausible search term, so Not done. —DoRD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
@DoRD: I'm re-pinging Richie Faxx for you. Your previous attempt to do so didn't work because you didn't sign your comment properly. Graham87 06:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Individual characters of this sort are useful redirects, if nothing else because people often can't see what the character is, so they can use a link from the character to see what it depicts. For example, when viewing this thread yesterday on a public computer, I saw 🕷 as a little box — I knew what it was because of the request, but had I seen it in isolation, I wouldn't have had a clue what it was. That being said, combinations of one character with other text, or combinations of more than one character together, are almost never useful: you won't use the combination unless you already know the constituent parts, so you'll be able to find the target. See the deletion discussion for 🎈 release at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 25, for example. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Really disappointed that this thread wasn't about the possibility that Spider Man was editing his own article.... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Original issue dealt with, disagreements on side issue can go on user talk pages. Or Twitter. Or somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could we get a couple admins to help block some vandals? On Huggle it currently has a massive 17.5 RPM right now. Thanks! Yoshi24517ChatOnline 19:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:AIV seems pretty empty right now, so these reports would need to be made if indeed there is a number of edits committing repeated vandalism. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Very sorry, but this is a grammatical bête noire for me: "A couple of admins" and not "a couple admins." Confer The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, p.87, "couple": "Used colloquiallly, to mean a handful or a few, couple should always be followed by of (a couple of pomegranates never a couple pomegranates)" In fact, to this New Yorker's ear "a couple pomegranates" sounds as if it's coming from a person who came to English from another language, especially from Yiddish. I wouldn't complain, but I see this misusage from students frequently, and it seems to be sidling its way into the language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Was...was that 'really necessary? This was a request for admin assistance, not an English class. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact is the speaker communicated his point effectively and parsimoniously, therefore it is not incorrect, just not preferred by some folks. As the French say, "whatever." Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There's nothing to be gained here. The user was blocked for three days some months ago, mainly because they refused to engage with the community in any meaningful way. Rather than engage with the community in any meaningful way, they chose to abandon the account. Point proven, one might argue. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well, not naming names, but I just saw where an administrator gave a short block to a productive editor (and in this case for a trivial offense, or really not even an offense at all) and the productive editor responded by leaving the project for good.
Just a gentle reminder to please go easy with this stuff, people. If I may recommend WP:HURTS as something all admins might want to glance at? Herostratus (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't want to call out that admin or any admin. We all make mistakes (God knows I've made many), and I spoke to him about it privately. My intent is to use the event to take the opportunity to give us all pause to reflect, not to call out any individual. Herostratus (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the essay is rather good, and should be required reading, not just suggested reading. MPS1992 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't find its definition of a "real world' where most people (or many people at least) have never been in any sort of conflict in their "real" lives, ever, to be particularly compelling. My life has, on the whole, been pretty great and yet almost all the stuff on the list of things that apparently don't happen to most people have happened to me at some point. It's called living. It isn't always easy but it's worth doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
While I do disagree witht he logged reason for the block, I would also note that this user edited for eight years without ever speaking to any user about anything. Zero edits to talk, user talk, or Wikipedia namespaces. This is a collaborative project, refusing to communicate hinders collaboration. The idea that they were unaware they had a talk page is ludicrous, we've always had the orange bar, and in fact it was substatially larger and more obnoxious when this user started out. Edit summaries may not be required, but being accountable for your edits and responding to concerns is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Did the user fail to acknowledge or respond to important warnings on his own talk page? Because (otherwise) there is actually no Wikipedia rule or policy that an editor has to discuss with other editors -- although I have seen a block given to a disruptive and heedless (but not strictly policy-violating) editor who had ignored dozens of talk-page notices/warnings over several years. That particular block was given to force them to reply, and was enacted from a consensus at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Again, I do not agree with the stated and logged reason for the block, and I would add that if I were considering blocking them for a problematic failure to communicate, I would say so and give them a chance to respond first. That being said, I do believe refusing to communicate is a real problem and at a certain point is grounds for a block. Eight years of unresponsiveness is a real issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This is one of the perennial dilemmas of restricting anything - will the bad edits that were prevented outweigh the good edits that weren't done? I don't think one can boil this down to one essay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That is a pickle, and I don't believe the cited essay does anything to resolve it. This is the basic conflict of all admin work, will the harm of preventing something (through blocking, deletion, page protection, etc) be greater than the benefit? Who can say? I would argue that a discussion of this specifc block, with the admin who made it, would be more worthwhile than plugging an essay that was just moved into project space and has yet to be subject to serious review by the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Some edit summaries I see from veteran users and administrators alike are not helpful or explain virtually nothing to most people. Would it have made a difference if Cliff1911 suddenly put "fixed" as the edit summary of an edit? Not specific enough still? If they repeatedly make a controversial edit, without explanation, there's some ground to stand on about non-communication. That's not what happened here though. Cliff only made one edit to a single article that EncMstr disagreed with and was blocked, by EncMstr, for it. He proceeded to log off for good after that. With that kind of explanation for making a non-controversial cleanup, I don't blame Cliff for not talking to anybody here. I certainly wouldn't. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 08:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, if that is the editor in question, blatantly ignoring years and hundreds of talk-page notices and then getting blocked for something related to at least half a dozen of those notices (not leaving an edit summary, especially when deleting text), does point up the fact that like any community, Wikipedia has certain community norms, and if you violate those norms for years on end consequences will happen. Not a great block rationale, but not the worst block in the world. And yeah, Herostratus, that's a nice essay, but the fact that you just put it live and then posted it here seems a tiny bit like advertising. Also, the editor did not put up any kind of "retired" notice, he just hasn't edited since the block (which, although it was for 72 hours, listed no timeframe visible on the talkpage). Seems like a bit of a CIR issue. Also, for all we know he merely created a new account. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem there is that the user in question, Cliff, was actually following the typical manual of style of film articles by removing content that shouldn't have been (and still is) there. EncMstr is an administrator. Not only should they be well aware of policies and guidelines of the articles they are editing, but they certainly shouldn't be restoring questionable content and then blocking him. Should Cliff been more responsive to users asking questions? Yes, assuming Cliff was aware there was project/talk spaces to edit and not blissfully ignoring them. Should they have been blocked for making a good edit? No. Regards, — MoeEpsilon 09:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
There had already been four ANI threads about him (which he was notified of): [48], [49], [50], [51]. He was going to get a CIR block one way or another. As it happened, the block was pretty short. He could have easily made an unblock request or come back in three or more days and resumed editing. He chose not to. Speaking for myself, I don't have much patience for WP:CIR issues that have lasted more than five years. Softlavender (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Communication is required at multiple levels. Not leaving edit summaries is one thing, annoying but not actually prohibited. Not responding to people who try and talk to you directly (because you have not left an appropriate edit summary) is entirely different. There is zero evidence over a number of years they have any wish to actually talk to anyone. So frankly expecting an admin to jump through hoops that have previously been ignored is a waste of everyone's time. See point 4 of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this conversation is turning out the way the OP intended. I'm relieved to see that I am not the only one who thinks this block was just badly explained but probably justified and necessary. This is hardly new, I've seen dozens of cases of users that manage to avoid consequences for their problematic editng by just ignoring others' concerns and trying to "fly under the radar." It's actually a very effective strategy and something we should be more aware of and proactive toward. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
It's not necessarily turning out the way I'd hoped, and yes, you Beeblebrox disappoint me. The fact is that this user was discussed several times, always with the consensus of the admin corps (or, at any rate, the people who comment at ANI which is mostly admins I assume) being "Whatever his pecadillos, he is clearly a net positive asset to the project, so leave him alone". Taking the attitude "to hell with what the admin corps thinks, I am smarter than the admin corps and know what's best, so buh-bye" is a disappointing attitude, yes. I'm not saying the person who blocked him takes this attitude -- maybe he was unaware of the editor's history, maybe he just lost his head for a moment -- but you Beeblebroxare taking that attitude, as a considered position. That's disappointing, yes.
The main point I'm trying to make is some number of blocks are going to turn out to be de facto permanent bans, regardless of how short and trivial you consider them to be, because the person is going to be offended enough to leave, so be careful", with this particular incident as an example. Whether an individual wants to consider and ponder that fact or not is up to them, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed a single block can drive away some users over the perceived injustice. I have myself caused the departure of a possibly useful contributor (see [52]), and another block of an editor with 20000 edits but lack of competence (and insufficient English skills to discuss this), Sheynhertz-Unbayg, turned into a ban and an insane number of sockpuppets. It is often very hard to predict how blocks will turn out. Editors whose work may be of benefit for Wikipedia if cleaned up properly or if somebody goes and checks them all are not as much of an asset as they may appear to be. Still, thinking about the person on the other end before pushing the block button is usually a Good Idea. —Kusma (t·c) 20:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This seems quite topical given I've been requested to try and manage yet another block of Cassianto (talk·contribs). I don't really want to get in to an in-depth discussion about who said what to who and where, suffice I am certain this block will cause more disruption than it prevents. I have previously written something similar into the new admin's guide to try and ram the point home.
The closest I have come to being blocked is when I went through a brief spell of using an IP to edit in my local library (I now bring my laptop in and have 2FA enabled, so I'm less worried about the security aspects). I had a bunch of books on a desk, and was about to start putting the {{cite book}} templates in the relevant articles, when I noticed the block message, which I'd never seen before. My reaction was "WTF?" and I fired off an unblock request, which was declined. That was an eye-opener and a half. Even though I knew exactly why the block took place (vandalism from somebody else in an earlier session), I was thoroughly brassed off that I couldn't improve the encyclopedia. I put the books back, stormed off in a huff, and basically wrote off an afternoon's editing. If that didn't drill into me how blocking has to be a serious last resort when absolutely nothing else will work, nothing would.
As far as Cliff1911 goes, I am sure I have defended him on ANI before as being harmless; the only problem is it would have been nice for him to just say "hello". AFAIK there was the odd minor violation of BLPSOURCES, which under normal circumstances would justify at most a revert, and possibly a friendly pointer towards policy if there were too many instances of it. I think if we could have found any non-wiki way of communicating with him, somebody would have done it. I'd quite like to know what he said. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 22:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow! Sorry for the unresponsiveness. I was in the wilderness and then had trouble returning because of a winter storm.
I see I may have Ham-fisted a block over three months ago. While I make mistakes from time to time—and initially thought I was having a bad day—upon review of the history, I stand behind that block.
The user was asked at least six times to provide edit summaries. The third time (September 2011), a possible block was warned over the issue. I can kind of see why Herostratus says there were no escalating levels of warning because there doesn't seem to be a suggested course of formal warning escalation for the minor offense (not a wiki-law, but a social collaborative offense) of not providing an edit summary. But never ever ever ever providing an edit summary 53,510 times seems deserving of some reaction. Especially if talk page warnings don't show any change in behavior. The 72 hour block was intended as an impossible-to-ignore attention getting effort. I had anticipated the editor would immediately request an unblock, provide some insight about his behavior, be unblocked, and get right back to work.
Alas, that user has not edited since then, which is unfortunate. I sure wish he would continue. Perhaps my doing nothing (not blocking) would have enabled the editor to provide a net positive. But what about the many (how many?) editors who review edits who have to work harder because there is no edit summary? It is hard to weight the pros and cons when not able to find out how much work is caused.
Perhaps the first section title of WP:EDITSUMMARY (Always provide an edit summary) should be reworded to suggest summaries are optional since the rest of that section doesn't seem to match. Or does it? Maybe it should say that leaving an occasional edit summary blank is probably okay but never providing one is "bad", especially when never using any other means to collaborate. —EncMstr (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
If you are blocking solely on the basis that edit summaries were not provided, you seem to be misunderstanding current policy which does not dictate that edit-summary-less edits are in violation of policy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The former is a common name for the latter, but I cannot create it because it matches a blacklist entry, since (ironically enough), lots of spammers have been trying to insert technical support scams into various wikis with titles containing "support number".--Jasper Deng(talk) 00:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Do you have evidence of that kind of disruption here, disruption that would warrant preëmptive protection of the redirect? Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend:m:Title blacklist is where it's at; the entry .*(help desk|support)(.?phone)?.?number.* seems to be the one blocking it.--Jasper Deng(talk) 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
No, that's not what I meant; sorry. Based on the vandalism that's caused this entry to appear in the title blacklist, do you believe that we're likely to see this kind of disruption at this specific redirect, now that it exists and can be edited, and if you believe that we're likely to, do you believe that it's likely enough that protection is needed off the bat? Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Probably not. Inserting spam on the page on the type of scam you're trying to pull off is a really good way to make folks fall for the scam.--Jasper Deng(talk) 04:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Duolingo has dropped its Immersion translation system; perhaps Wikipedia can get it; it's far better than machine translation[edit]
(non-admin closure) Not an admin issue. Advice given to take the idea to the Village Pump. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know that there's been problems with Wikipedia's current translation system and the overuse of machine translation. Duolingo had the model of crowd-sourcing translations. I have often contributed to Duolingo translations from non-English Wikipedias and found that crowd-sourcing can lead to high quality translations. Perhaps Wikipedia can look into getting Duolingo's system. Lots of Duolingo users are upset about the loss of Duolingo's Immersion translation system. I think Wikipedia has an opportunity to step in and offer a crowd-sourcing translation system (either get Doulingo's or develop our own). This is also a win-win situation both for Wikipedia and the fans of Duolingo's Immersion tool who spend a lot of time translating articles for free. Duolingo's system was very general and went between any two languages they supported. This system had some features that encouraged people to think through their translation. --RJGray (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That's an interesting proposal. I don't know anything about Duolingo and its system but since this idea should get more feedback I dropped a link at the Village Pump to get a broader audience. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Andrew Davidson and RfA - Topic ban proposal[edit]
Re-closing per WP:SNOW. This is going nowhere and the OP has called the proposal a mistake on his talk page. With all respect to Kudpung there is no obligation to keep a discussion open for any length of time once it becomes clear beyond reasonable doubt that the proposal is dead. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I looked at Andrew’s most recent votes and found the following, which I have attempted to summarise without injecting my own opinion:
Extended content
Primefac 2 - Opposed regarding one recent AfD nomination.
Cyberpower678 2 - Opposed based on not wanting to give bot creators administrator rights, resulting in an extended argument unrelated to the candidate.
K6ka - Opposed based on lack of content creation. Also opposed due to not having a userright that the candidate actually did have (at the time).
NinjaRobotPirate - Opposed because the candidate voted to delete an article in which a particular song was listed, because that song is now no longer in a Christmas list article on Wikipedia. Debated to the extent that the discussion had to be moved to the talk page.
Ad Orientem - Opposed based on quality of content creation.
Boson - Neutral based on some concerns over content creation quality, but also because they edit articles on rude words.
Yash! - Opposed because the candidate’s self-declared ability in English was less than their self-declared ability in other languages. Discussion had to be moved to the talk page.
Godsy - Opposed because the candidate created the article grease fire which was not up to Andrew’s standards.
Samtar - Opposed because the candidate nominated an article for DYK that wasn’t up to Andrew’s standards.
Vanamonde93 - Opposed primarily because the user had cited research in an article that was published too recently.
My personal thoughts on Andrew’s voting history are that even when he places an oppose vote that isn’t completely ridiculous, it’s rarely indicative that the candidate shouldn't be trusted with administrator rights, and such votes are far outweighed by the ones that cause other editors to spend time and effort arguing with him. Other highlights include implying that not using your real name or disclosing your gender is a reason not to be an admin, by the way. If many of Andrew's votes were made by new users they would be reverted on sight as outright trolling.
This isn’t to say that every vote Andrew makes at RfA is a bad one - he has made plenty of sensible votes over the years - but I believe that his participation in this process, especially recently, is absolutely a net negative, draining the time, effort, and goodwill of the users who argue with him, and contributing heavily to the atmosphere that drives users away from RfA. I therefore propose that Andrew be topic banned from voting at RfA. Sam Walton (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Support- yes, I've long been of the opinion that this guy's votes are subtle, pompous trolling. Opposing people for such crimes as being a fan of Hunter S. Thompson, or editing articles on topics that don't interest Andrew Davidson, or not being a native English speaker, are utterly ridiculous. ReykYO! 19:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment this opening statement is completely unsupported by any comparative evidence. "Over the years that Andrew Davidson has been voting at RfA he has shown himself to be the single most disruptive and disagreed with RfA voter." It is POV at best and is a non-neutral, lead to a very important subject - banning someone from an area. It required Arbcom sanctions the last time such a Tban was proposed - and it was a partial one at that. I can think of several more notable contributors - names that will be far more familiar to those with half decent memories. Sanctions have to be based on more than POV and guesswork. Leaky Caldron 19:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
If you disagree with that sentence, then please ignore it and read the rest of the post instead. I've reworded to be less objective at any rate. Sam Walton (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
It couldn't be any less objective. Leaky Caldron 20:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose My !votes are all in good faith. I look at the candidate's user page and edits and then !vote based upon what I see. Sometimes I oppose and sometimes I support. Here's a good example. Andrew D. (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm torn. One one hand, it's depressing to see people saying, essentially, "Help! We are completely incapable of ignoring someone who clearly spouts nonsense, and are forced against our will to argue incessantly with the one vote out of 179 that we disagree with! Protect us from ourselves!" My gut warns me that this is kind of the thin end of the wedge, and it won't be long before other people use this precedent to start targeting people who use more defensible, but not mainstream, rationales. I still remember how out-of-proportion angry people got with Kurt's silly but relatively harmless "self noms = de facto power hungry" opposes (I'm not linking user name solely to make the young pups do research if they're curious, so please don't link it anywhere. Make them work for it!). Seems like it would be easier to create Template:Don't bother arguing with AD, no Crat is going to pay attention to this vote, and the first person to see another silly oppose can slap it on the page.
On the other hand, AD's RFA opposes are really, really obnoxious about 75-90% of the time, and as someone (Brad?) said, often functionally indistinguishable from trolling. There comes a time when you just have to say "Come on, man." Or at the very least, when you just have to say "I don't really want to spend political capital defending this silliness".
So, borderline oppose, but I will lose precisely 1.34 minutes of sleep over this if consensus doesn't go my way. But I reserve the right to oppose much more vigorously if RFA bans start to become a thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Andrew opposed my RFA, and I respect his reasoning for it. I don't see his opposes as "trolling", but of a mind as to what he believes to be needed for an admin. That being said, I have to agree with Floquenbeam, his opposes can be very irritating, and generate enough unneeded drama during an RFA. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Andrew/Colonel can be incredibly annoying, but if I were compiling a list of the most obnoxious "regulars" at RFA he wouldn't even make my top ten (and most of that list would probably actually come from the serial supporters who regularly descend on anyone daring to raise an objection to a candidate). I really don't like this recent trend of declaring people personae non grata from various Wikipedia processes—either someone is problematic enough that they warrant some kind of sanction, or they're not. Either find enough evidence of misconduct to ban him from Wikipedia, or leave him alone—the RFA participants aren't such delicate flowers that they need to be protected from anyone faintly critical, no matter how silly the criticism. ‑ Iridescent 20:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose this vindictive attempt to silence opposition. Mr Davison always does his research on candidates. Sometimes his opposes are for reasons that I consider strong; sometimes they are for reasons that I consider quixotic if not idiotic. But they are always well-researched, and that sets Mr Davidson out from the crowd. So what if he is often in a minority of one or two. Live with it. Welcome the diversity and obvious love for wikipedia that he brings. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I respect the nominator, but, his examples don't show anything near the functional equivalent of trolling.About the only one I saw that I would have chided him on (if I held the mop) was NinjaRobotPirate's AFD. That was a patently ridiculous rationale and he did get promptly shot down for it on the discussion page. Further, there are others who have agreed with his reasons on the AFD's. I don't see a reason to TBan him for this. KoshVorlon} 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Stupid votes can be ignored, and frankly the scheduled events of tomorrow raise my tolerance for all forms of dissent to an all time high. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Weak oppose while it's tempting to support this, it's better to allow the Colonel to continue to make his unique contributions to the RFA process. They make no difference whatsoever to the actual outcome, especially more recently. They do, however, tend to create a considerable amount of heat without creating light, and lend to a more hostile atmosphere. So, it'd be better for people to ignore these edits if they find them irritating and meaningless, rather than get worked up and seek a topic ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Completely per several of the above and many of the following. I have read comments from some Admins “hinting” at some sort of “RFA deform ” to “deal with the likes of” AD. If this is it, it is a horse that will not run. Maybe a trial gallop? If so, an unimpressive one. If it was an RfA - WP:SNOW. Leaky Caldron 20:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
oppose I don't care for a lot of these opposes because I think they are poorly reasoned, and they remind me of some past editors who would always find some reason to oppose no matter how terrible. That being said, if you actually look at the RFAs linked above, in almost all cases the candidate was promoted, and when they weren't it ws not because of this users' stated reasons, so we can probably just ignore their comments at RFA instead of barring them from participating. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Andrew will know that I have/had a lot of issues with some of his editing in the past, but his RfA opposes have in the main been reasonably well researched (there's some that have been a bit flaky. OK, very flaky.). If you're going to ban someone for that, I can think of a lot more RfA regulars that ought to get the boot first. And the other thing is - it's one vote. I would hope our crats are perfectly able to distinguish good opposes from nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose although I don't always vote at RFA, I tend to follow them, and I cannot think of a case where an unjustified oppose vote from Andrew has caused a significant trend towards opposing. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though. While I understand the viewpoint that there is a culture of hostility at RFA, I don't see how topic-banning Andrew is going to have any positive impact outside of eliminating a bunch of back and forth policy discussion that has little, if any, impact on the RFA. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Personal (non-bureaucrat) opinion: It's probably best if people who are annoyed with Andrew's participation at RfA to view him as a form of 'official opposition'. Take it as likely that Andrew will oppose the candidate using the strongest reason they can find, and if that reason doesn't compel you to oppose or withhold support, you can rest assured in your support or non-opposition of the candidate. Except in a potential case where his oppose rationale is actually misleading (and thus should be challenged for the benefit of other participants), it can probably be left without reply. –xenotalk 20:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. His !votes are observationally equivalent to trolling. Opposing someone for operating a bot properly and within community standards? Ludicrous. ~ Rob13Talk 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - I will not be helping to set the precendent to evict dissent. This is a slippery slope and one which has already been trod upon a couple of times. The rule of law has always been thus at RfA; vote. That is the law. There are few rules that enforce any sort of "quality" upon the RfA process. Aside from the occasional sockpuppet vote few are struck and those that are, often end up being unstruck. I'm not so concerned with who the topic ban is being aimed at, as much as I am concerned that a topic ban on this subject is being suggested. For that matter, Andrew Davidson is not going to be topic banned from RfA. Yes, some of their votes are "shaking my head" worthy, but, then when I see "why not?" as a support rationale I shake my head just as vigorously as I do at even the worst of AD's votes. To quote another editor; "Well, why? would be a good start." Mr rnddude (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. I've disagreed with all of Andrew's RFA comments that I've seen recently. In fact, I think some of them are pretty daft and give the impression that his motivation is to find any possible reason to oppose, however lame. However, I don't see any incivility or personal attacks, and I really hate the idea of excluding people who don't fit in with an 'approved' mindset - wedges, thin edges, and all that, as someone said. If Andrew makes a silly-looking !vote, just ignore it! People replying and kicking off arguments about his !votes are as much a part of the problem - crats aren't stupid, and can be trusted to evaluate it properly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I oppose censoring RfA participants in this way. I disagree with almost all of Andrew D.'s opposes des jours but I don't think they are just trolling. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I recently discussed this with some other admins via email and I wrote : "The problem I've got is I can gather together a large number of RfAs where he opposed; but of those I don't think there are too many where nobody agreed with his opinion and it led to a screaming match. Yash's RfA was a good example, and had he passed I would have probably used that. But generally, I think the community pays little attention to his vote, and where more than 2-3 people do agree with it, it's probably something somebody else might have mentioned anyway." I was not against starting a discussion on ANI, but going straight for the topic ban was premature, I'm afraid. Full disclosure btw; Andrew supported my RfARitchie333(talk)(cont) 21:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Support I agree with Reyk and Rob. I find it very hard not to see a pattern of subtle trolling. NinjaRobotPirate and Cyberpower 2 are clear examples of "oppose for the most ridiculous reason just because I can". Before anybody says: "he opposed your RfA"—well, I pre-empted you. BethNaught (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. His opinions are not outside the boundaries of reasonableness, and he limits his participation, unlike some others whose signatures appeared a dozen or two times in my RfA, Andrew's only appeared once. Though I thought his grounds for opposing my RfA were weak, occasionally I see him opposing an RfA with a newly-mentioned rationale which has some good basis behind it. Anyone who would be intimidated from running because of Andrew's presence at RfA probably is too thin-skinned to be a good administrator anyway. wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. In a way, I find Andrew's ridiculous opposes to actually be useful. I know that he will bend over backwards to find a reason to oppose an RfA, so if the best he can come up with is, "not enough content creation", then I know the candidate will be a good administrator. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Well I wrote a pretty long reply last time and ended up conflicting with the closer here so I'll keep it short this time - I disagree with Andrews !votes and IMHO it seems like they're simply trying to find a fault with anyone and everyone ... however they're entitled to their opinion and if they wanna oppose everyone then fine - He does research candidates and he does provide detailed answers (they're not one liners like "I think this candidate would be shit" etc etc), I mean no disrespect to Andrew but most of the RFA !voters tend to more or less ignore his !votes and I don't see why we shouldn't continue ignoring and I don't see why we should topicban someone for simply opposing no matter how irritating it may be. –Davey2010Talk 03:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Support This user's opposes in RfA has been on my radar for some time. Some of them are so off topic or way off the mark (e.g. Cyberpower's RfA) that it's borderline disruptive to the RfA process. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. We are not in the habit of scrapping votes against someone's RfA because we don't like them or because they're wrong, except for in clear-cut cases of vandalism, disruption, etc. Doing this preemptively is even worse. I have disagreed often enough with Andrew Davidson (if we agreed in one out of a hundred interactions I'd be surprised, and we must have had hundreds), and this includes many of their RfA contributions--and whaddayaknow, earlier today I saw one of his comments, on a recent RfA, and thought he was right on the mark. Either way, no; any disruption caused by his votes is easily manageable (just let admins or crats remove stuff!), and you can always choose not to pay attention to his comments. Closing crats should be trusted to have enough sense to value things properly. No, leave him be. I welcome his critiques. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose as written. I might consider a lesser restriction (such as no replies to comments). --Rschen7754 03:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I generally think Andrew is a net negative at RfA, and pretty much ignore most of his comments, but I baulk at censoring RfA in this way, and am concerned, like others, that this is the thin edge of the wedge. 'Crats can ignore him as they should in most cases, but he does occasionally raise something useful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I always read Andrew's opposes and often disagree (but not always). They always appear to be made in good faith with some research behind them. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Procedural oppose Having recently woken up at 06:00 Japanese time to find an ANI discussion of whether I should be blocked for something I had done several days earlier having already proceeded quite a bit while I was asleep, I fully sympathize with the concern expressed by Kudpung in the message linked below. But the whole point of SNOW closes is that, regardless of whether people who live different time zones than the majority of contributors to English Wikipedia have had the chance to contribute, they are extemely unlikely to sway the closer's decision even if they can. This isn't like one of those AFDs that received universal opposition before someone realized the article was a COPYVIO (I would link it, but can't for the life of me remember which it was). Lots of similar discussions get closed in very short lengths of time, and I don't recall ever seeing an exact hour figure put on it in WP:CLOSE or any PAG. Even if it were, one rotation of the earth seems pretty arbitrary, as on any given day there are probably a lot more North America-based editors who go out after work and and don't get a chance to login for more than 24 hours than there are editors in Asia who work eight hours, sleep eight hours and have eight hours in which they usually contribute to Wikipedia -- 48 hours would be safer, if the point was to play it safe. Yes, maybe a newly anointed admin shouldn't be making that decision, but it's not like CP678's RFA was one AD supported and CP678 was "returning the favour" by prematurely closing the TBAN discussion. I honestly can't see this discussion going anywhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Need some additional information and understanding, possibly extend a block[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've had an off and on battle with the IP address 152.131.14.7 for about 2 years now. This IP address has been frequently going into college basketball season article, specifically whatever the current season of Kansas Jayhawks men's basketball is, and changing around things that are untrue, for example, what started my initial discussion with them was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2013%E2%80%9314_Kansas_Jayhawks_men%27s_basketball_team&diff=595207525&oldid=594934184 this] which was replacing verifiable material with something that could not be verified. The most common thing is messing with the heights and weights on the roster. I've reached out to this IP address on multiple occasions and every time my attempts to communicate go unanswered, as most IP address do. Every time this IP address does this, I go to Administrator intervention against vandalism. Each and every time, this IP address has gotten blocked, currently its been blocked 6 times (current block is #6) as you can see in it's [block log. Considering the fact this is obviously the same person doing it since its the same thing each time, shouldn't this warrant a permanent block? Or maybe I just don't understand when permanent blocks are used on IP addresses. I'm not complaining about the admins that have block this IP address at all, I'm just trying to understand this a little bit better. If this isn't the right place to take this issue, please let me know and I will take this discussion there.--Rockchalk717 05:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The indispensable Materialscientist has blocked 152.131.14.7(talk·contribs·WHOIS) for two years which is as close to permanent as possible with an IP. Please report any similar abuse, for example if the user returns on a different IP. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is likely public domain and eligible for a move to commons: File:Pilsudski wilno polish-lithuanian interwar relations.jpg. The rationale for this is based on commons:User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright, namely that "works by presumably Polish anonymous artists published in Poland before 1946" (this image is from 1935) are PD. Granted, there is an illegible signature that nobody was able to properly decipher, but illegible signature are logically no better than anonymous and should be treated as such, and for that rationale see for example this Oxford catalogue of works, were works with illegible signatures that can be only partially deciphered and couldn't be traced back to a proper person are categorized under anonymous: Roger White; Robin Darwall-Smith (2001). The Architectural Drawings of Magdalen College, Oxford: A Catalogue. Oxford University Press. pp. 147–. ISBN978-0-19-924866-7.. If anyone can find a better legal precedent/explanation about such signatures, do let me know, but if not, I repeat: this is an anonymous work, and should be treated as public domain until a moment someone can decipher the signature. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not convinced a signed work becomes legally an "anonymous" publication just because you or I can't read the signature any more. Ignorance of authorship is not the same as lack of authorship. To me this signature looks pretty distinctive and to a contemporary reader who knew what cartoonists were active in the field, it would clearly have signalled: "this work is by me, cartoonist so-and-so". Have you researched the archives of the publication in question to see who their cartoonists were? In any case, you should have provided the actual source; it's from here: [53]. Fut.Perf.☼ 14:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
BTW, you can find other cartoons by the same author in other volumes of the same paper, where the signature looks more readable, like here [54]. It looks like "St Rydygier" to me (which would seem to be a plausible name in Polish, right?). This [55] Google books search points to something (in Polish) that might suggest there was one "Stanislaw Rydygier" working for Mucha in the 1930s. Can you verify this? Fut.Perf.☼ 17:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
(Here [56] is a small copy of another cartoon with what looks like the same signature explicitly credited to "S. Rydygier". Fut.Perf.☼ 17:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC))
More: Would "Stanislaw Rydygier" be a frequent name? This [57] website gives birth and death dates for a person of this name as 1872–1943, in which case we'd be clear of the 70 y.p.m.a. It doesn't identify him as the artist though. Fut.Perf.☼ 20:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
A 1943 death-date would make the author‘s works public-domain in Poland now (since 2014), but not as of the 1996 URAA cutoff, such that a work published in 1935 will remain under copyright in the US until 2031.—Odysseus1479 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
User:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Wonderful job finding the author! How did you find the source for the image? I must have uploaded it long ago when I wasn't that well-versed in citing sources properly, so thank you for fixing my mess!
User:Odysseus1479: Are you sure about that URAA interpretation? Have you checked commons:User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright? I am pretty sure works by Polish artists who died 70 years ago are PD. PS. In case of pma 1943, this would have entered PD in Poland in 1994, and would be still PD by 1996, so it should not be copyrighted in the USA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Finding the source was surprisingly easy: just type the words of the caption into Google and it finds you that digitalized archive at uw.edu.pl [58] From there I just had to randomly browse into some of the neighboring volumes to find more from the same author. Maybe you should write an article on that magazine, Mucha, by the way. :-) Fut.Perf.☼ 22:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I guess I was thrown off by the mention of 70 ypma above; if the applicable term is actually 50 years (according to the law in effect at the time) then yes, the Polish copyright expired before 1996 so was not extended by the US under URAA.—Odysseus1479 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I would not object, assuming the description & licence are updated. Although the dating for the artist would ideally be more solid, it’s plausible enough for me, given that I believe the PCP should be combined with a ‘balance of probability’ approach to provenance (as opposed to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’). However, on technical grounds I would rather see a fresh upload in PNG format. The image at the cited source appears to be some 30% larger in pixel dimensions than the “full version”, and despite not being able to see the latter I’ll bet that it suffered somewhat from being JPEG’d. I’d be happy to prep the image (crop, straighten, & convert to monochrome) and either send it to you or upload it myself.—Odysseus1479 20:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Piotrus: nope—same source as linked above, but possibly a more effective method of capturing the available data. Anyway, there’s now a version of the picture at File:Pilsudski wilno polish-lithuanian interwar relations.png. Please check the licensing: because I don’t know what template to use for the Polish side (PD-50 having been deleted for some reason), I just added a note to the “Permission” section as rationale for the US template. I also took the liberty of editing the description a bit and adding a few categories.—Odysseus1479 23:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Currently +/- 730 requests, some waiting 14 days. Any and all will be appreciated. Thank you, - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Race and intelligence[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Mathsci(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) was unbanned in April 2016 under the condition that he refrain from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to the race and intelligence topic area, broadly construed. This restriction is now rescinded. The interaction bans to which Mathsci is a party remain in force.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 21:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Backlog was dealt with currenly is <50. — xaosfluxTalk 22:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
We are starting to get a bit backed up at CSD. There are currently more than 200 articles waiting for admin review/action. I am going to start at the bottom of the alphabet, if someone else wants to start at the other end or somewhere in the middle...? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It was mostly G13s, which have been taken care of by Fastily, many less to look through now! Sam Walton (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
That helps! -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The AN/I thread "Page ban move" concerning the actions of User:Dicklyon was originally posted on January 7. It's now January 22 where I am, and the thread has generated about a gazillion words, but started to become repetitive some time ago. Could some brave-hearted admin take it upon themselves to donate to the project the time necessary to read all that verbiage, consider the various POVs, and render a decision? Thanks, and good luck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFC closure reviewed by three admins as requested, none of whom expressed any support for changing in any way it was closed. Closing this now before someone finds themselves blocked. Lankiveil(speak to me) 23:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Formal challenge placed now. I request three senior closing editors to review the RfC closure specifically to look at the sources quoted toward the end of the discussion to adjudicate whether it is reasonable to include a small passage in the discussion (one or two properly sourced sentences) on biotech, specifically pointing out that several sources lump biotech into Silicon Alley albeit as a minority viewpoint. I believe that as many times as I quoted these sources in the discussion, they were not seen clearly until too late, after !votes had been cast, since I was specifically not allowed to post these refs in the text of the article pending the discussion, where in plain sight would have provided fair, reasonable, and proper adjudication by actual and potential !voters. Castncoot (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Moved from WP:ANRFC to here verbatim so that a review can begin. I am the closer of the RFC Tazerdadog (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I think my closure was fine, but I welcome comments on it from anyone. The closure was discussed at my talk page before coming here. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
From what I can see the issue was given a fair and thorough hearing and need not be discussed further at this time. It's important to be able to realize that sometimes the community doesn't do what you think it should and you need to able to accept that. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Endorse. Seems like most of the sources were presented before about half of the !votes came in, so the later !votes (which followed the same trend as the earlier ones) did have access to them. And what Beeblebrox said. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Not the topic of this discussion. AN is not for re-litigating content issues. Please consider the possibility that you might be wrong and that the people who thought that they don't justify a mention were right. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
What Jo-jo said. The point of a closure challenge is to see if the closer correctly assessed the consensus. In my opinion they did. (My opinion on the refs is irrelevant to this). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying that someone is "right" or "wrong" here, I am saying that there is a "reasonable" option which the closer declined based heavily upon, per his closing statement, the actual content of the sources themselves. But this exchange indicates that even he wasn't aware after going through the RfC that I had indeed brought these sources up repeatedly earlier in the discussion, simply because he (naturally) didn't notice them through the muck. So if he didn't notice these within much of the discussion even after close examination, I can reasonably infer that many others wouldn't have seen them at all until too late, if ever. Once people !vote, it takes heaven and earth to get them to revert their vote, and that's really not a fair expectation. Castncoot (talk)
Not true. If there were reasonable sources presented that discuss the role of Biotech in silicon alley then I would support its inclusion. But the fact is the sources are weak. There were several discussions had on the talk page about sources. Polyamorph (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. It didn't go your way. That doesn't mean the close was improperly done, and it's not the end of the world either way, it's just some words on a page. If you're going to get along well here you need to learn to let go of these things even when you just know you're right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
This user is unfortunately continuing their disruption at Silicon Alley by edit warring (they want a link kept to Biotech in the See Also section) and have attempted to start a new RfC about said link. This is getting disruptive.Polyamorph (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Put the stick down.Polyamorph (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I have made a slight amendment to my closing statement, reverting to my initial version. This hopefully renders the see also section moot. I apologize for my error and the extra confusion it has caused. The change should be minor in the context of the entire close. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
This is not a minor change, and I really have to question your judgement and competence here in this particular decision-making process. First of all, you rushed the process. Secondly, perhaps in that rush, you didn't even notice that I had indeed mentioned strong sources earlier on and instead told me it was my problem that I didn't express them earlier when I did,[59] in the middle of a muck of discussion by many which obscured these refs from !voters, rather than being allowed to post these in the article in the first place. Thirdly, you implicitly allowed biotech to potentially remain in the See also section with your initial closure amendement and then decided you had a change of heart once I took this point to task. I request that three senior administrator closers examine the whole case again, including the content of the refs expressed at the end of the discussion themselves. This is too critical a discussion to ignore. Castncoot (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It didn't go your way. Get over it. Move on. Take a break (I think it's needed). Insulting the closer and demanding more and more input from sysops who are just going to tell you the same thing is not going to change the result of the RfC. Polyamorph (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
It went your way, but through manipulation of the reader by steadfastly refusing to allow refs to be placed in plain sight in the text and thereby depriving them of the right to fair, reasonable, and proper adjudication. That's where I see a major problem here. I challenge you to re-open the original RfC with the refs in the text, and I can bet you'd see a different result, one which allows some mention of biotech. Castncoot (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The refs were very weak. They were discussed in the RfC. What will it take for you to accept the result? Polyamorph (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You say that after the fact that you !voted in the way that you did but then had a change of heart once I finally pointed these refs out to you to prompt you to say this, if not enthusiastically, and User:Boghog to say this. Clearly it is a legitimate viewpoint, if not the majority viewpoint, and a sourced statement attesting this should be included. Forget that, however; if this RfC had been conducted entirely transparently, I wouldn't be here now, even in the event of a similar result. My primary objection is not that it didn't go my way (obviously I wish it had), but that the process, had it been performed fairly with the refs clearly displayed to source already-existing text being adjudicated, would very realistically have led to biotech being retained in the article, at least as a "passing reference", which even you were OK with. Once !votes are cast, very rarely does anyone even amend them with caveats. Castncoot (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You're just repeating what was already covered in the RfC discussion. Drop it. Polyamorph (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Really? Was yours just a rhetorical question [60] or did you actually expect me to answer it? What will it take for me to accept the result, you ask? Transparency. Meaning re-opening the Rfc with biotechnology referenced in the text by the strongest refs available for everyone to see in plain sight and adjudicate on that basis, rather than the way it was actually carried out, by intentionally handicapping biotech with weak sources in plain sight, keeping the strongest sources buried in discussion until it was too late, and then asking for adjudication under these rigged conditions. Castncoot (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The burden of proof was on the supporters of the proposal to provide adequate sources and they did not (see for example this analysis). Your refusal to accept consensus is become very disruptive. Move on. Boghog (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I tried throughout, including here, but you and Jytdog kept reverting my attempts to source the text. Reverting text is one thing, but reverting the refs being used to support the text being adjudicated? That's unconscionable. And since when is refusal to accept a process disruptive if I truly believe the underlying process itself was faulty? I will repeat myself for the nth time, it's not the result that I refuse to accept per se, it's how that result came about, through reader manipulation and lack of transparency which really bothers me, leading me to refuse to accept the closure specifically on those grounds. Castncoot (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Total BS. The only reason you appealed is because it didn't go your way. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the process.Polyamorph (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Castncoot, as an uninvolved observer, I hope that you will accept I have no dog in this fight and my advice is freely and honestly meant. That said, you really should let this one go. In almost every debate of this nature, the holder of the minority opinion gets to the point that they have two choices: "Do I want to be right, or do I want to be effective?" At this point, your point of view has gathered no support. Short-term effectiveness is therefore a moot point. If you keep insisting on making other editors concede you are right, however, you will be sacrificing the potential for effective consensus-building for your possible positions in the intermediate and long term. No person can make another person see a situation as they do. Another way of phrasing it would be: Is this the hill you want your wiki-reputation to die upon? Because, at least for some editors, it will. I echo the advice you've been given above. Take the "loss," recognize that a distributed effort doesn't always see things your way, and move on to some other issue. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 06:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about my reputation, if that's what you're talking about; there are enough people who respect my work on Wikipedia, not that I need anyone else's affirmation. I do care tremendously about editorial integrity on Wikipedia, and if irregularities have occurred in the discussion and adjudication processes, then some difficult questions need to be posed; that's the only way to keep Wikipedia journalistically honest and to avoid cronyism and corruption. It's also not true that nobody has supported my viewpoint. User:CuriousMind01 and User:Chrisvls supported inclusion of biotech in the article, and there were others who were OK with the inclusion of biotech in the article at some point, including the people most vehemently protesting it now, such as User:Boghog ([61]), User:Jytdog ([62]), and User:Polyamorph ([63]). The other thing I realize only now is that the closer User:Tazerdadog didn't even comment in his rushed closing that User:Jytdog actually closed the RfC with the compromise ([64]) and that User:Jytdog then reverted himself and reopened the RfC using a ridiculous argument about another edit made on another article; I wouldn't be surprised if User:Tazerdadaog wasn't even aware of this. The process was improperly carried out from wire to wire, and definitely creates a blemish on the editorial integrity of Wikipedia that can only be cleared by an unbiased examination of the case, including the refs clearly visible only at the end of the discussion, and even there only after the section is uncollapsed, by an impartial panel of three administrators. Castncoot (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
With regards to your reputation, if you continue to edit war at Silicon Alley or elsewhere then I will request sanctions be taken.Polyamorph (talk) 15:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Castncoot, you asked at the start here for ...three senior closing editors to review the RfC closure... and got exactly that. They didn't agree with you, hence my stating that your position (specifically, your position that the RfC must be reversed) received no support. Now you are basically saying that that review didn't count because you now want three more editors, specifically admins, to perform the same review. There is a lot of problems with this. First of all, the first two editors to chime in are admins, secondly, the one who isn't is very experienced in closing discussions, thirdly, by saying that there still needs the same review but with different people reviewing, you are moving the goalposts.
Most importantly, however, you are saying that there is intellectual dishonesty in this discussion, and your only evidence for such dishonesty is that your references weren't accepted as persuasive. Just because you think that something should be included doesn't mean that editorial integrity is threatened. Leaving a subset of information out of an article is a normal part of the process and editorial integrity is a resilient thing.
Every time I have seen an editor say that grand things like the very integrity of the project is threatened by the inclusion (or lack thereof) of some subset of information in an article, I have seen it end badly. The project is huge. One article isn't going to make or break the integrity of it.
Care as much or as little about your reputation as you want, what I am talking about here is: what course of action is going to get you what you want? No matter how much this information's inclusion on that page matter to you, you can't get it to happen without other editors agreeing with you. Rational cost-benefit analysis would suggest it is only worth arguing a position when it is important and you have a chance of persuading others.
You have been arguing for this point for over a month now. You have made the same arguments, albeit with some new references, for that time. You have again argued about those references and their inclusion on Tazerdadog's talk page and here. Do you really see that you are changing anyone's position? If you think that beating that same drum is going to save Wikipedia from itself, then, by all means, keep beating it.
Comment. As an involved editor, summoned by bot into a roiling thread, and who put forward a compromise, my read is that there was a brief moment where the compromise could have taken hold. But the insistence that the compromise sentence be in the lead section kept the compromise from gaining support. That, and the long history of very harsh language all around, kept the sides from finding a more nuanced consensus. Learning opportunity for all involved. Chris vLS (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Revised comment. Actually, re-reading the RfC, I'm not that sure what happened without spending a lot of time climbing through it. Chris vLS (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually ChrisVLS, what ensued after your involvement is that soon thereafter, I became amenable to your compromise and requested a proposal from User:Boghog, who then took it a step further and proposed his own compromise, which I also agreed with, which included biotech in the body of the article. User:Jytdog then agreed to that compromise and closed the RfC ([65]). Jytdog then reverted his own closure using the reason that I, shortly after he had closed this RfC, transported the same content to which he had agreed over to the Biotech and pharmaceutical companies in the New York metropolitan area article. He got incensed by this and then immediately reverted my material on that page, which I reluctantly let go, but also reverted his closure of the RfC at the Talk:Silicon Alley page. You can't make this stuff up. This is a debacle which was never addressed by User:Tazerdadog, the three senior editors near the top of this section on this page, nor User:Eggishorn, and this is downright unsatisfactory and unacceptable – I'm not sure that any of these editors were even aware of these shenanigans having taken place. You're also right that the discussion was highly voluminous, and I believe that the proposed refs didn't have a fair chance of even being seen by enough !voters. Castncoot (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually Eggishorn, with all due respect to your eloquently stated passages, you're chronologically mistaken about the sequence of events. The three senior editors you're referring to above never commented after User:Tazerdadog re-amended his closure. When a closure is amended twice, probing questions need to be raised about this definite irregularity, and the entire discussion and closure need to be re-reviewed with a fine-toothed comb, regardless of intention, in order to maintain Wikipedia's integrity. Castncoot (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually Polyamorph, that was an inappropriate and highly offensive prophylactic threat. Edit-warring is edit-warring, regardless of the perpetrator. Did I threaten sanctions on you or User:Jytdog for this action, which was expressed at a critical point in the discussion and demonstrated, at minimum, poor optics and poor judgement? Jytdog's explanation of this off-wiki e-mail, if anything, the more I think about it, reinforces in my mind the possibility of collusion per meatpuppetry and personal familiarity between these two editors, as such a comment should rightfully and objectively have been placed on-wiki, not off-wiki. I request that the RfC be re-conducted, or at minimum, reviewed from top to bottom, including its discussion and closure. Otherwise, a significant number of editors are going to be disappointed and lose faith in the promise of Wikipedia to maintain due diligence and journalistic integrity. Castncoot (talk) 02:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
😲 Shock! It's all a conspiracy! Polyamorph (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The usual way these discussions tread after a few days....Conspiracy....Loss of integrity of the project....So many editors will be disappointed.....Winged Blades Godric 16:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Castncoot:---I think it's the precise time to invoke WP:DROPTHESTICK.Save your time as well as the community's.And may be come back later when there is a probability that the consensus of the community/majority has changed substantially w.r.t to the topic of the RFC.Winged Blades Godric 16:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, but I have sequential facts to back me up. Do you? This RfC should be re-conducted from the beginning: 1) with biotech restored and fairly referenced for fair, reasonable, and proper adjudication by the reader in advance of !voting, 2) with a commitment by all editors not to engage in off-wiki communication regarding any aspect of the RfC process during the RfC process, and 3) with a panel of three senior closing editors, preferably administrators, adjudicating the closure. Castncoot (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
STOP! Stop making these false insinuations of off-wiki collusion. Any admins reading this please make them STOP! You lost the RfC. This is one of the worst cases of bad sportsmanship on wiki I've had the displeasure to witness! Chill out and take a break. Polyamorph (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
To all reading, I've no choice but to take this to ANI. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Lol! Who's the one who needs to chill here? Hey, I'm not the one who engaged in off-wiki correspondence about the RfC process during the RfC process, and Jytdog has admitted as much. This fact offhandedly caught my eye, and otherwise would not have even been brought to life. Did anyone force the two of you to correspond as such? To what extent did it affect the RfC? After all, the two of you constituted the most vocal opposition in the discussion by far, and seemed to go hand-in-hand with your comments and edits all along. This RfC has been conducted as far from conventionality as I have ever seen. That should bother the majority who care about the project. Call me obsessive-compulsive about the truth, but I call it as I see it. Castncoot (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You're making baseless accusations. You've been asked to stop many times. Unfortunately I've had to take this to ANI as you don't seem to get the message that everyone is telling you. Polyamorph (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Mmmm... look again at how many are protesting bringing up the off-wiki e-mail correspondence issue. Seems like just you. I stand by my statements unequivocally. It's now up to the administrators to decide how to deal with this awful mess. I have nothing else to say. Castncoot (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I haven't sent any off-wiki communication with anyone. The accusations are baseless and unacceptable. That is why it is at ANI.Polyamorph (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have added template:not a sandbox to the page Sandbox (band). Please could someone also add it to the same page's editnotice, as with other pages whose names include the word 'sandbox'?
Olidog 13:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems a bit overkill to place that massive, ugly and intrusive tag onto a fairly obscure article. If there had been dozens of test edits on the article, I might agree with the need for it (or better still, semi-protection), but this has had fewer than 50 edits in the last seven years. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 18:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I just checked the history of that page back to December, and I don't see where anyone's tried to use this as Wikipedia's sandbox. I do see a diff where someone's attempted to add a disambig to this article stating that it's not the sandbox, but other than that, ordinary editing. I'd say that template's not needed KoshVorlon 19:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I've removed it, essentially for the reasons given above. If, and only if, test edits intended for the sandbox start popping up on a consistent rate, theb maybe the notice could be added back. Until then, it's not really necessary. JudgeMR(talk to me) 01:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Users unblocked after explanation given. Any further action to be taken will not be here. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While reviewing the activity of my former students, I stumbled upon Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Youtaejoon/Archive. Sigh. Yes, they have a similar IP and often edited the same article at the same time, because they were students in the same class (Education Program:Hanyang University/Sociology of Everyday Life (Spring 2016)), collaborating on a single article, often from the same computer lab. So the block is clearly unjustified. Now, they were warned near the end of the course, probably never saw nor understood the warning (they are ESL students anyway), they were blocked after the grades were submitted, at which point like most students they never even bothered logging back to the Wikipedia account, so no harm presumably done, but to set the record straight, it would be nice to unblock them, restore their userpages, and leave a note on the sockpuppet investigation. A final note: it seems that no admin/checkuser bothered to look at the logs of the actity for those editors, which would clearly show something like " March 7, 2016 Yeong Jae Kim (talk | contribs) enrolled in course Sociology of Everyday Life (Spring 2016)" and "June 11, 2016 Yeong Jae Kim (talk | contribs) added article Ryu Gwansun to their list of articles at course Education Program:Hanyang University/Sociology of Everyday Life (Spring 2016)". Minor WP:TROUTing for some people may be advisable, along the lines 'check the logs next time' :P --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
FacepalmBus stop (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Done Unblocked. — xaosfluxTalk 21:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Just a note here that I don't think a CU was actually run since the block reasoning was not {{checkuserblock}} but the more vague, "abusing multiple accounts". Whether or not this is true would be in the CU log. It looks more like a DUCK block which obviously wasn't do duckish after all. --Majora (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mistakes happen, and this one was reverted. There is now a CfD to see whether the mistake was actually beneficial. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Here please. Discussion has gone way beyond being productive and is basically antagonising one of the parties to no benefit at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I second that request. Consensus seems clear to me, but I'm involved so my interpretation can't be trusted. Let's get an uninvolved admin in there, please. Beyond My Ken (talk)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@!hellao!: We have a new editor who has added single characters to the Chess.com article and reverting them multiple times. A few of this editor's contributions have been constructive, the majority not. I left a mild warning, the behaviour continued. What to do now? MaxBrowne (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Their initial edits weren't that bad so it's unlikely that their most recent edits were just testing the page. My impression with this edit is that they're Macer75 evading their block, so I've blocked them for sockpuppetry/block evasion. I think that they might have been trying to sneak themselves back on again and then decided to just cause mischief until they were caught - it's not unusual for some blocked accounts to go that route, unfortunately. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bot to delete emptied monthly maintenance categories[edit]
In order to save the time of editors who tag emptied maintenance categories for speedy deletion, and of the administrators who process these deletions, it has been suggested that these deletions be performed automatically by a bot. The bot request at WP:BTR was marked as "needs wider discussion". Hence this post here. 103.6.159.67 (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you looking for support? I don't see why such a bot would be controversial. Once a monthly category is emptied there ought not to be new pages added to it, so it's just clutter. Unless the admins who regularly process these category deletions (I'm not one) really want to hang on to this task, which I doubt. Could the same or some other bot also check new maintenance tags for being placed in the correct month? We occasionally have clueless users or vandals reverting old tags with old dates, which could be problematic if the monthly categories are deleted. But I guess that's a problem whether it's admins or bots that are deleting the categories. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector:Once a monthly category is emptied there ought not to be new pages added to it, so it's just clutter. Your statement is indeed an "ought not", as such categories are routinely added to as a result of page restoration from history. Users do so innocently (and I can say I've probably done it at least once)--calling them "clueless" doesn't seem very good-faithed. --Izno (talk) 14:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Izno and Ivanvector: It is a non-concern, it is not problematic. When new pages appear in formerly emptied monthly maintenance categories, the category is automatically recreated by AnomieBOT (and formerly, this was done by Femto Bot) For an example, see this. 103.6.159.67 (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: Innocent is what I meant. I didn't mean to imply malice but couldn't think of synonyms before coffee this morning. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Support as proposer. Even if these deletions are not very frequent or a major workload, it makes sense to hand it over to the bots as it is something they can do. At a time when we know that the numbers of editors and admins are in a prolonged decline, mundane tasks which do not require any human intelligence or judgement should be performed by bots. Human editors should rather spend their limited time at places where their judgement is required. 103.6.159.67 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Partial support. For pages that have only edits by AnomieBOT and no talk pages, it makes no sense to require human intervention to delete them. If they have talk pages or nontrivial history, it might be good for a human to have a look whether any of the history is of any use. (Note: I have deleted some of these pages, and the workload to delete them is pretty minimal in my opinion, but very often really nothing requiring human eyes). —Kusma (t·c) 14:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Usually they don't, and usually the category pages themselves have no edits by others. I am only proposing to keep the unusual cases from bot deletion, while the usual cases should be bot deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 16:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Support - a human adminstrator will delete these on sight without any background checks, so it may as well be handled by a bot. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 18:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. Saves time, totally uncontroversial. It should hold 4 days after a category is emptied before deleting in keeping with WP:C1 and to allow for possible undeletions at WP:REFUND for various reasons. ~ Rob13Talk 20:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Conditional support. As long as the contents of the page are identical to the "basic" contents, i.e. any edits made since the creation of the page have been reverted. All the vandalism in the world, if reverted, won't be noticed by the normal human admin, since nobody checks the histories of these pages. However, if the page looks different from normal, the human admin may well refrain from deleting it until he's checked and convinced himself that it's okay to delete. If it's harder for the bot to identify no-net-changes-since-creation than it is to identify no-edits-since-creation, I'd be fine with the bot ignoring pages that have been edited after creation. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, BU Rob13, we don't need to wait four days, because C1 isn't the criterion that's being used; it's G6, which has as one example "Deleting empty dated maintenance categories". As noted above, the category will get recreated if pages get added to it, and we don't do a WP:REFUND for pages that haven't been deleted yet. I can't imagine a good-faith undeletion request for one of these pages being denied; it's not as if these are controversial deletions that someone would have a good-faith but bad-idea reason for requesting undeletion. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, as long as another bot would recreate the category if an undeletion caused it to be repopulated with a page. As for screening out bad/mistaken actions, we have to be especially careful to prevent a situation where a page can be moved to a new category title for deletion by the bot by a page move vandal. Skipping any page with 2 or more revisions would be a good idea. ~ Rob13Talk 00:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Withdrawn by editor. SQLQuery me! 02:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's my understanding that admins should not block those they're involved with. But that is precisely what happened. I got blocked by Ian after being in a dispute with him plus he also did not put a notice on my talk page. That's two things he should know not to do. I posted two unblock requests that got denied. Ok, fine. I'm no angel. It seems the second unblock denial resulted in the block being extended. No big deal though. If admins aren't supposed to make blocks with those with whom they have a dispute and should post block notices, why hasn't Ian been admonished in any way? Admins should follow the rules too. I'm notifying Ian too.2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no requirement to place a note on the block-ee's talkpage. SQLQuery me! 02:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I can see where this is going already. I won't editing wiki anymore. No need for anyone else to respond. 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Return of checkuser and oversight permissions to Yunshui [cross-post][edit]
Yunshui(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log), voluntarily retired in November 2015. Their checkuser and oversight permissions were removed without prejudice against requesting reinstatement in the future. They are reappointed as a checkuser and oversighter following a request to the committee for the return of both permissions.
Time to remove Tristan noir's (interaction) ban?[edit]
The interaction ban is rescinded by unanimous consensus. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey, I think it's time my IBAN against Tristan noir (talk·contribs) was removed. It's been over three years since he last violated it, and he hasn't edited at all in 11 months, so it's really just a formality at this point.
The ban was originally put in place in February 2013 (as a modification of an earlier two-way restriction from December 2012) and the wording was modified in April 2015. It is now logged at WP:RESTRICT.
As for why I'm bringing this up now, a recent remark on an unrelated ANI thread has convinced me that the fewer times my username appears on WP:RESTRICT, the better, as even one-way restrictions that were put in place to protect me from abuse can apparently be used against me years after they served any practical purpose.
Clarify Damn. Forgot to mention this. I am not proposing that the Tristan noir entry on RESTRICT be removed outright. It also includes a separate and largely unrelated TBAN. I'm neutral on whether that one remains, but only because he's inactive, and I wasn't the only one being hassled by the edits that led to the TBAN. The other users who supported the TBAN would need to be consulted. Pointing this out because several of the "support"s below are !voting based on my statement alone. This makes sense for a one-way IBAN, but BMK's original "oppose" rationale would make a lot more sense for a community sanction that doesn't affect only one user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: The clarification directly above is what I was referring to. The users who posted their "Support"s below did so largely because the IBAN was put in place to protect me and I was the one requesting it be removed; the TBAN was put in place to protect the project from disruptive editing, and it shouldn't be lifted just because of a mix-up with a separate sanction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Support due to a philosophical disagreement with interaction bans in general. ~ Rob13Talk 00:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Rob, you, of course, can support or oppose the proposal for any reason that makes sense to you, but I do have to point out the irony that you can make a comment like this here, a support for a specific proposition based on general principles, and no one bats an eyelash, but if I do the same thing on an RfA, oppose a candidate on the basis of general principles, I get messages telling me that my !vote is harmful to Wikipedia, or that I shouldn't base my !vote on general principles, only on the specifics connected with the nom. I wouldn't think of suggesting that the closer of this thread should put less weight on your comment because it's based on your personal philosophy, but people regularly suggest that Bureaucrats put less weight on my oppose (or even discount it altogether) because it's based on my personal criteria. I suppose that one could make the argument that RfAs are different from every other kind of discussion on Wikipedia, but, frankly, I ain't buying such a contention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: RfAs genuinely are different from other discussions because they have hard number cutoffs to them. The numbers matter far more than in actual discussions, which is why many editors attempt to persuade editors opposing for silly reasons. Having said that, I actually would expect my support to be discounted somewhat here. I recognize that my opinion is far disconnected from the community's here, and so I would expect it to be given less weight. That's proper for a closer to consider. I personally believe that interaction bans tend not to solve the root behavioral problems, are more of a pain to enforce than they're worth, and seriously damage the collaborative environment of the encyclopedia, but that's not (yet) the consensus view. ~ Rob13Talk 07:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand your thinking, but the "hard cut-off" isn't really a hard cut-off per se, since all it does it say that within a certain range the 'crats are expected to treat the RfA in the same way any closer is expected to treat any other discussion. However, the 'crats aren't forbidden from denying the bit above that range if no legitimate policy-based reasons have been provided, just as any closer is expected to evaluate the comments per policy in any other discussion. That being said, I take your point that the hard-coded "disretionary range" does make RfAs a little different from other discussions, just as I hope you took my point that the hassling of oppose !votes in RfAs which are based on reasonable personal philosophy is antithetical to the general POV in other discussions that sees no problem with such comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I just don't see it as hassling. I see it as objecting to/challenging, just as you've done here, which is an important part of any discussion. As a closer, I find any bits of interactions between the two "sides" in a dispute to be most helpful in evaluating the discussion. When people stay in their respective "sections" and don't consider the viewpoints of others, it's very hard to gauge how discussion participants perceive strength of arguments. ~ Rob13Talk 21:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
But you and I have had a polite discussion. Believe me, that's not been the case on some RfAs. One really does get the impression from some people that the simple act of opposing an RfA is seen as disruptive. It's also clearly the case that support !votes do not get objected to or challenged the way opposing !votes do.Anyway, this is a sidebar to this IBan-removal discussion, one which we should probably end. I just wanted to point out what I saw as a bit of irony. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. Ten edits in almost three years, and no edits in most of a year, means that we're not likely to see any interaction of any sort between the two of you, whether or not it's disruptive. Interaction bans can be useful, but nobody familiar with your (plural) history would call for one of them to be imposed on you (plural) right now, and if we shouldn't impose it, we shouldn't continue it. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Bans and other sanctions are not generally removed simply because the editor is not currently editing, for the obvious reason that if the editor returns to editing, we would want them to do so under the same conditions until they could show the community that the sanctions are no longer necessary. Removing sanctions during a fallow period would also encourage people to edit under another ID or with IPs, waiting for the sanction under their previous ID to be removed. This request would create a bad precedent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
But we can always reimpose it — get blocked or banned for X, get the sanction removed, and go back to doing X, and the sanction is routinely restored with a "bonus". Removing sanctions during a fallow period might encourage that for a more short-term absence, but we're talking a nearly total absence from the project for just almost three years; most people who are gone for that long will never return to significant activity, and the likelihood that anyone else would say "I'll disappear for a similar long time in hopes of getting my ban revoked, and then come back" is miniscule. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
True enough. OK, Support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Support - If the individual protected by the one-way IBAN requests it to be lifted, then there should be no reason not to grant that request unless there is evidence of baiting, trolling, or other malfeasance. As Tristan noir has not made any edits in almost a year, I don't see how there is any malfeasance on the part of Hijiri88, nor do I foresee any interaction between the two. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 03:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Support - If the person protected by the IBAN wants it removed and the user isn't active, why not? -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Support - it's a one way interaction ban intended to give Hijiri88 relief from being pestered. If Hijiri88 now feels it's doing them more harm than good, then it ought to be lifted. ReykYO! 06:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Support If the user who was causing the disruption asked for this in these circumstances I might feel differently, but since it's the user who was being protected by this restriction I can see no reason to oppose granting their request. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Support — I don't really like the idea of permanent bans, and in this case the ban seems to be solely to protect someone who wants it revoked, so there's no reason remaining to keep it. And it doesn't look like anyone will be opposing, anyway. Κσυπ Cyp 09:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Support - given the low editing of the other party this no longer seems necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Could someonean admin close this? Unanimous consensus for a minor procedural change. The (false) claim that I am subject to multiple IBANs as a result of my own disruptive behaviour is still being made on ANI, so the sooner the words Originally, a mutual IBAN between Tristan Noir and Hijiri88 (who was named Elvenscout742 back then) was in place. Following an incident initiated by Tristan, an AN discussion has resulted in a one-way IBAN for Tristan towards Hijir88. [...] also [...] are removed from WP:RESTRICT the better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: I have reverted your good-faith close and change to RESTRICT. The change you made was not in accordance with this discussion, and I think it would be a bad idea to give this a non-admin close. I hope you don't take offense at this; I really appreciate your effort to close this, and your contributions elsewhere on the project. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hijiri88, ah yes, I forgot about the TBAN. Was not meant to remove that. No matter, I'll leave it to an admin - per my "shaky grounds for NAC comment" - to re-close and enforce. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thread moved, so nothing to do here. Κσυπ Cyp 22:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've taken the liberty and moved this to WP:ANI, see this. Blackmane (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Done, I've struck the summary. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requiring to block several sockpuppet accounts that performed cross-wiki vandalism[edit]
Requiring to block all users listed in this category on Chinese Wikipedia. These are confirmed sockpuppet accounts, and most of them have performed cross-wiki vandalism on enwiki. And if possible, please semi-protect this article on enwiki to avoid feature vandalism. Thank you. --Techyan（Talk） 03:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Blocked all of them. I wondered about blocking at first, but since we have multiple accounts all editing the same page, and another project's confirmed them to be sockpuppets, there's no reason to think that maybe they'll respect our policies without a firm reminder. Nyttend (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
PS, I don't think protection is a good idea. With all known accounts blocked, we can't see any related disruption unless another account is created (before then, no real risk, so no point to protection), and with them having concentrated on this article, I'd like to use it as a Honeypot (computing) in case further socks appear. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
New Adminbot proposal - History Merge cleanup of another bot[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello All, A BRFA has been opened for task approval for an adminbot to perform history merges related to cut-and-paste category renames performed by another bot. Please see the request here: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Merge bot 2. Questions and comments for the operator are welcome. — xaosfluxTalk 03:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There appears to be little appetite on the part of administrators to re-open this discussion, and a general consensus that the close was proper and correct. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In trying to make this a short summation: I am requesting an Admin reopen an AfD [66]The closing Admin says he does not have a problem with another Admin reopening the AfD [67], and I think this is the main point. The AfD was closed after only two days as a "speedy keep". [68].
Disagreement for this action led to a discussion by two dissenting editors (including myself) and the closing Admin on the Admin's talk page [69] For brevity I supplied the last diff pertaining to the discussion - it is just a matter of scrolling down to see the entire discussion.
The reason why I am requesting this be reopened is because other views were not given a chance to Ivote for the AfD. The other dissenting editor also says this is so.
To illustrate my point: This article itself has been contentious for months off and on. This is one of the most recent RFCs [70] and the previous related discussion [71]. This is the most recent from BLPN [72] (click on link in edit history for "Seth Rich" to see discussion). Here is a very intense RFC that occured in August 2016 [73], with a very good close (by the way). And these are of course just samples of the contentiousness.
So, hopefully it can be seen are other views not represented in the closed AfD, and therefore, consensus has not been properly represented.
Full disclosure: This type of premature close is new to me, so I first went to ANI a few days ago with this [74]. Three non-admins responded, I actually thought two of them were admins. Mention of DRV came up so I requested a close for the discussion with that in mind. Afterwards I realized the closing Admin himself said it was OK to find another Admin to reopen this [75].
And I realized that no Admins had responded at the ANI. It occurred to me, this is a simple matter that can be resolved easily and allow all views to be represented in this AfD discussion. So, here I am. Thank you. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I forgot to add this diff [76] which is the AfD 2nd nomination. This also demonstrates the contentiousness of this topic and that other views are involved. Steve Quinn (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
While you're perfectly entitled to do this, of course, can I ask why? I'd never heard of the man or his murder until I came across the previous discussion you opened, but it seems an obvious 'keep' to me, and it did to at least seven other editors at AfD. Two previous discussions closed as 'no consensus', largely because the event was too recent to judge its enduring significance. Is there actually a realistic chance that the article will be deleted now? It seems very unlikely. Why not get on with something productive? GoldenRing (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
That was a pretty clear consensus to keep in that last AFD. Yes, it was only 2 days, however that was a WP:SNOW keep if I ever saw one. I'd suggest at this point to move on, as the event is notable enough to remain, with coverage in multiple areas. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This was nominated for deletion , and kept 5 months ago, then 3 months ago, now this. I realize consensus can change, but that's too soon. The admin's close is correct, as far as I'm concerned. Leave it as it is. ƘƟ SĦ 13:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
As you pointed out, WP:DRV is the correct place if you still wish to contest this (despite whatever them admins say, heh), but I don't see it being overturned. ansh666 19:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
In this instance, the normal AfD process has been truncated. Over some years, it has been my experience that AfDs normally run for a minimum of seven days and frequently last for fourteen days and sometimes a little longer than that. This is in agreement with WP:AFD which says "Articles listed [for deletion] are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus."
This means up to half the discussion is missing, and the community consensus for this 3rd AfD has not been achieved. The 2nd AfD lasted about 16 days - this reflects the consensus of the Wikipedia community at large. This also allowed enough time for the 2nd AfD to reach consensus, which was "no consensus" - due to the quality of the Ivotes. That administrator was able to explain how they reached their decision.
In contrast, this 3rd AfD was closed outside the norm and no rationale was provided. It seems that uncommon or unusual actions should have uncommon or unusual explanations - more than stating the obvious - "snow keep" - but only after two days.
To illustrate the point - I believe, Major League baseball requires a home run hitter, someone who hits a ball over the wall, to touch all the bases. This wouldn't seem necessary but it appears to be a requirement. Likewise it is expected that in AfD, all the bases will be touched, as with any Wikipedia endeavor. This also means to allow all participants to participate - which ensures all the bases have been touched.
Also, this is as if one NFL team was able to achieve a higher tally than the other in the first quarter of a game, and for that reason the referees decided the game was over - after only one quarter had been played! Normally an NFL game goes for four quarters and 60 minutes. Would that be considered fair? Would that sit well with the NFL as a league? I think the league would say something is amiss. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, it seems that you missed the point. That's OK by me. The essence of what I said had nothing to with "follow all rules". Sorry. And you are entitled to your opinion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, it seems to me that you might be denigrating my position by linking to Mercy rule, and that does not seem very helpful to any discussion. In any case, I am not here to argue. I am here, simply, to request an Admin reopen the 3rd AfD. No need to get into reams of text about that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Forgive me, but as I understand it this board is for asking Admin assistance. It's not clear why non-Admins, some of them "involved" in the American Politics dust-ups that gave rise to this "snow" meme at the AfD, would be chiming in here. I thought this was one of those places where the usual food fights were not the rule. Any Admin could reopen the AfD, is that correct? What's the point of piling on OP for making a simple request. For my part, I can't see what harm it would do to reopen the AfD for a normal term. No editor is forced to pay any attention or "waste time" there. SPECIFICOtalk 03:58, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
From the top of the page: "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators.. Less "food fights" here than on AN/I, but anyone is allowed to comment here, not just admins. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Is that in doubt? What does that contribute to the discussion? SPECIFICOtalk 22:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
You seemed to doubt it: "...as I understand it this board is for asking Admin assistance", no it's for "posting information and issues that affect administrators", which is a much broader purview; "It's not clear why non-Admins, some of them 'involved' in the American Politics dust-ups that gave rise to this 'snow' meme at the AfD, would be chiming in here", they're "chiming in" because who can comment here is not restricted. So, your understanding about this board was wrong in several specifics, and I endeavored to correct those.For what it's worth, I can see no reason why an admin should re-open the AfD, and this request appears to be a case of special pleading. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Holy angels on the head of a pin Batman! At some point enough is enough. James J. Lambden (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I did not open this AfD, and would not have at this time. But since it has been opened it should be treated just like any other normal, run-of-the-mill, AfD. And this board is for requesting Administrator assistance. But everyone is entitled to their opinion. ---Steve Quinn (talk)
All you did was repeat what I already delineated and discussed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily. They also made clear just how much dead horse beating has been happening. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but they rarely achieve anything positive here. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 17:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
And I just noticed User:James J. Lambden did add more stuff than I did. So, I stand corrected on that. He added more detail. Still there doesn't seem to be anything special about this AfD that warrants early closure. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not like snow closes. I would not make this close. But this one of the few cases where it makes sense. Reopening is not needed. What is needed is for editors to wait a while - I mean months, a year... - before making any more nominations. Nabla (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Seriously, people? Fut.Perf.☼ 15:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the health section it states that Trump has a fear of slopes called bathmophobia, and needs holding other people's hand to negotiate a downhill.. I fear that this information that could be exploited by an enemy of the US to cause harm to the US. I think this information should be redacted and all revisions with it included deleted as mater of national (to the US) and international security. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)What? The information is reliably sourced and should be discussed at the talk page if there is a valid reason for its removal. Sam Walton (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
BLP applies here as well. This does not prevent us from replacing all stairs with wheelchair ramps when we know he is going to visit however... Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like for some of you to have a look at this--it strikes me as pure propaganda. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Please explain with facts why you feel so. Because the article only takes facts from reputable sources such as Reuters, Telegraph, The Atlantic, NationalReview, Mic, Vox. All facts in the article have a citation from a reference. Impartial Unbiased Triumph (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
ansh, given discretionary sanctions and NPOV and all, this easily becomes a matter for admins. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello all,
Back in late 2007, when I first signed up for Wikipedia, my initial edits involved adding trivia related to Camp Lazlo characters and sourced to episodes of that show (which, in the years since, I have come to understand is not an acceptable way to source information; see this example, my very first edit as a registered user). By sheer unlucky coincidence, this style of editing just so happened to match that of a sockpuppeteer who had been impacting articles related to Camp Lazlo, and I was incorrectly indeffed as a sockpuppet a few days later. It took some back-and-forth e-mails with another administrator, but eventually, I was allowed a good-faith unblock on the grounds that I avoided the articles in question; essentially, an unofficial topic ban from articles related to Camp Lazlo (and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, which the sockpuppeteer had also been targeting). See this revision of my user talk page as it stood at the end of 2007.
Fast-forward to 2017. While my editing has been rather infrequent since mid-2011, I have nonetheless acquired a lot of experience in the years since my rough start, and I would like to think that I have done more than enough to prove that I am not a sock. I never bothered to ask for a review of these restrictions until now because I was perfectly content with staying away from the articles in question; indeed, the vast majority of my work in the following years has been related to behind-the-scenes maintenance, bar the rare burst of content creation related to tropical cyclones or music. However, the fact that I still feel bound to an editing restriction that a.) was imposed when I was 11 years old, and b.) was due to circumstances that arguably weren't even my fault, does hang over me from time to time. Even if I end up remaining away from the articles in question by my own volition, I would like to be able to finally fully put the events of 2007 behind me.
May I please be able to edit articles related to Camp Lazlo (and Foster's) freely again? (In accordance with content policies and guidelines, of course!) --Dylan620(I'm all ears) 00:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Who was the supposed sockpuppeteer? Paul August☎ 00:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
My memory was just jogged about another detail - I remember editing the List of Camp Lazlo characters article and seeing trivial information that was already sourced to episodes, so I must have assumed that it was acceptable practice to do so, and wound up following the example set by PPG2007. Tonight, looking at the user's talk page edits, I learned that there had apparently been a large amount of edit warring at the time I made my edits to the article, for which reason the article was fully protected. Talk about me arriving in the wrong place at the wrong time, huh? --Dylan620(I'm all ears) 01:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Dylan620: PPG2007 made their last edit to List of Camp Lazlo characters at 16:30, 15 September 2007, and you made your first edit to that article exactly 20 minutes later at 16:50, 15 September 2007. That was your first edit anywhere, despite the fact that your account was created the day before at 16:31, 14 September 2007. That is almost impossible to read as anything but a sockmaster preparing a sock account in case they got blocked (which they did, at 20:18, 20 September 2007, by Persian Poet Girl - presumably what the "PPG" in "PPG2007" refers to). Why did you create an account and wait 24 hours before making your first edit? Why are you making this request over 9 years after your unblock? To me, this whole thing seems a bit weird. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I already explained in my original post why I waited as long as I did to make this request. Why did I wait 24 hours to edit after creating my account? Maybe I didn't feel comfortable editing straight away? That's the only explanation I can come up with; I'm 20 now, I was 11 then, and I feel that I shouldn't be expected to recall the exact thought processes which led me to wait to make my first edit. I have already insisted that I have no relation to PPG2007 other than that I mistakenly followed their example in using episodes as sources for trivia. I was unaware of the events surrounding the article at the time I arrived. --Dylan620(I'm all ears) 02:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Remove restriction regardless I am willing to take this user at their word, but even if I weren't they haven't been blocked again since this incident nine years ago, so it would seem apparent that the restriction is not serving a purpose even if it was valid to begin with. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
That's almost exactly what I was going to say; He's been here 9-1/2 years and has made 13,700 productive edits and hasn't gotten into any trouble since. At this point, I don't actually care if he was sockpuppeting, but I'll believe him when he says he wasn't. I'm strongly inclined to remove the restrictions (I almost just did it myself as a rouge admin action, but figured that would probably actually make life harder for Dylan). Considering our "standard offer" for people who have caused far more trouble than the supposed sock master is 6 months, and it's been almost a decade, I don't see any valid reason to keep these obsolete restrictions in place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Remove restriction. The almost decade long unblemished track record speaks for itself. And even avoiding the controversial pages after all this time, per their agreement. Stellar behavior. Good job! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Support removal of restrictions. Unlikely coincidences do happen, and I'm happy to accept Dylan620's explanation. But even if Dylan620 had done something wrong, it was a long time ago, and an adult shouldn't be forever branded for mistakes made as a child. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Support, even though it hasn't been a full decade yet. Same obvious reasons as everyone else is saying… Κσυπ Cyp 11:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. I can't see any reason to keep them. Doug Wellertalk 17:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Support; we can deal with any problems later (and it doesn't sound like there will be any). Miniapolis 23:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. As noted above, even if this were CU-confirmed as sockpuppetry, with no reasonable alternative explanation, this user's actions since then would easily demonstrate that we should remove the restrictions. Only the exceptionally disruptive user (WoW, Bambifan, etc.) really needs sanctions for such a long period of time, and it would have been entirely reasonable to un-restrict this helpful user several years ago. Nyttend (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arbitration Committee response to the Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has a number of concerns about the advisory statement about paid editing and private information released by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal team. Although we understand that many within both the WMF and the community want to crack down on undisclosed paid editing in an effective way, several aspects of the statement require awareness and discussion.
Relationship to outing and harassment
The Arbitration Committee, as individuals and as a body, has a great deal of experience with how private information disclosures actually occur in a community setting. The Wikipedia harassment policy, which prohibits the disclosure of other editors' personal information without their consent, reflects over a decade of accumulated experience and institutional knowledge about this precise problem. That knowledge has been hard-won, and in many cases has come at the expense of dedicated and productive volunteers whose personal information was exposed by others. While many of the people who chose to reveal that information strongly believed they were justified in doing so, this does not mitigate the damage they did or the fact that volunteers were hurt as a result of their participation in the project.
The views outlined in this statement are significantly weaker than the protections the community has historically provided against online harassment and disclosure of editors' personal information. We are aware that the Wikimedia Foundation, like the Arbitration Committee and most Wikimedians, is also concerned about the harassment of community members, and we appreciate the Board's statement of a few weeks ago on this issue. We are concerned, however, about tensions between the current statement on paid editing and the Foundation's other work on harassment issues. For example, the Terms of Use FAQ includes "Harassment should also be avoided. For example, under the English Wikipedia policy on harassment, users must not publicly share personal information about other users." The current draft of the harassment training module being developed by the WMF reads in part, "Cases of deliberate PII [personally identifying information] release might include an attempt to 'out' another editor, perhaps to link their account to a purported employer." These materials collectively make clear that releasing personally identifying information about another user without the user's consent should be considered harassment. Except perhaps in extraordinary circumstances, this position has our support.
According to the statement, "if someone is editing for a company and fails to disclose it, an admin properly posting that person’s company where it is relevant to an investigation is helping bring the account into compliance with those requirements." The Arbitration Committee and community policy do not consider posting such information to be a specific responsibility of administrators, nor do we believe that the threat of posting such information should be used as a means to bring editors into compliance. In our opinion, the harassment training material quoted above is correct in defining such posts as inappropriate. Being doxxed and treated in ways the community has defined as harassment is not a reasonable consequence of noncompliance with a website's terms of use, particularly where no distinction is made between isolated, minor, or debatable violations as opposed to pervasive and severe ones.
This statement suggests an almost unbounded exemption to the outing policy to allow people to post public information on any individual they believe is engaging in undisclosed paid editing. Furthermore, the statement does not define or limit what may be considered "public information". Combined with the addendum that this kind of investigation could be applied to address disruption outside of paid editing, such as sockpuppetry, this advice if broadly interpreted would practically nullify the existing anti-outing policy.
Ambiguity of the "paid editing" problem
We are also concerned that the statement does not clarify the existing definition of paid editing, which is vague and susceptible to multiple readings. We understand that the core concern about paid editing involves large-scale enterprises offering paid Wikipedia editing services as a business model, and if it applied exclusively in that context, the recent WMF statement would be much more understandable, although it would still raise issues worthy of discussion. But it is not at all clear that the statement, or the intent underlying it, are limited to that context. If read broadly, the current definition of "paid editing" may include editing for one's employer or an organization one is affiliated with, even if no money changes hands in return for the editing. Moreover, "editing one's employer's article" could mean anything ranging from correcting a typo on the employer's article, at one extreme, to creating or maintaining a blatantly promotional article as part of a PR department's job responsibilities, on the other. It is not clear where on this continuum, if anywhere, a user becomes a "paid editor" whose activities people feel violate the TOU and are subject to exposure. Further to this, the definition of "company" in the statement is unclear. It could refer to either a paid editing business specifically, or refer to any company which is the subject of a Wikipedia article.
There is a difference between a major paid editing ring that has created or is seeking to create hundreds of promotional articles about non-notable subjects as part of a major business enterprise, and other scenarios that could be called "paid editing" which should be discouraged, but not through draconian means. Consider, for example, a hypothetical college student who makes the ill-advised decision to write an article about a friend's company in return for $25. They would be violating the COI policy and the TOU, but are not a major threat to the wiki. We worry that the statement does not include any advice for proportional responses based on the severity or extent of undisclosed paid editing.
Possibility of misuse
The statement also does not take into account the possibility of intentional misuse or gaming to harass innocent editors. We have seen repeated malicious attempts (so-called false flags or "joe-jobs") to incriminate editors for paid editing, and this would make it trivial for harassers to out their targets under the guise of stopping a paid editor. Malicious outing is not a rare occurrence and numerous editors — including several current WMF staff — have been the victims of outing and the threat of it.
Role of the Foundation in developing community policy
Finally, we are concerned about a statement like this posted locally on the project with the perceived force of authority of Wikimedia Legal, even though it has been tagged as an essay and described as advisory, not as policy. We expect that some editors will interpret this as binding and lean on it as a justification to publish information on-wiki that previously was, and still is by policy, prohibited harassment. Any current policies that do not align with the views expressed in this statement will likely be challenged as contradicting Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team. This seems to be a substantial departure from the historic relationship between the Wikimedia Foundation's Legal team and the communities of the projects for which it is responsible, when it comes to matters that are not under Wikimedia Legal's direct purview. The paid editing and harassment policies are up to the local community to decide, and we hope that they will consider the statement carefully when making any changes. In the future, we feel a more discussion-based format such as an RfC would be a better way to provide input on local policies without the risk of statements being interpreted as binding.
Moving forward
The Arbitration Committee appreciates that the Wikimedia Foundation Legal team sought our feedback on an early version of this document, and accepted a portion of that feedback. The committee hopes this feedback is equally welcome. Furthermore we extend an invitation to the Legal team, and to any other interested community member, to commence a request for comments on this matter if they believe any aspect of local policy needs modification, in accordance with the consensus-building method the English Wikipedia has used for many years to develop local policy.
Use WP:DRV for this appeal. It is not an issue for admins at this point. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Could someone check an AfD's commentators for me?[edit]
Could someone check the commentators with IPs starting 27.63 on this AfD for me please? They may be inked to the page creator and are hoping that the page is kept. Thanks. NördicNightfury 16:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Only a checkuser can see a registered account's IP address, and they won't publicly connect IP addresses to a registered account. I find it highly suspicious that every time Yudisina (talk·contribs) votes in an AfD discussion, his vote is followed by at least one IP editor who geolocates to the same Indian ISP (27.63.0.0/16 or 223.191.0.0/16). I would suggest to Yudisina that this series of peculiar coincidences cease to happen. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
FYI: I have already an SPI case for those behavioral issues. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I've struck the obvious sock votes. Black Kite (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Looks like discussion has died out here and the thread that was requested be closed, has since been archived. Blackmane (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Content dispute between two sides who don't get along. I'm the only outsider to have commented in three days (Cordless Larry is also largely uninvolved, but had commented before the ANI thread was opened). At least one of them appears willing to take the dispute back to the appropriate venue, but also appears to want to wait until the ANI thread is closed.
Despite my apparent involvedness I could probably get away with NACing the thread myself, but I think it would be better accompanied with a warning about canvassing and TLDR-filibustering, I've already done this to no effect, and maybe an admin would be better.
Your involvement is significant, much more than superficial, so I do not agree that you could "get away with" closing it yourself, and I would advise that you do not try to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, yeah, if anyone wanted to challenge me for NACing because I am already involved, they probably could. My point was that I don't think anyone would challenge it, as I seem to have successfully convinced most of the participants (at least the ringleader on each "side" of the dispute) that nothing is going to come of the thread no matter how long it stays open. That's why I said "get away with": technically, my NACing a thread I've already posted in multiple times would be a violation, but I don't think anyone would challenge me on it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe that you are incorrect in your assumption. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
If you've actually read the discussion and disagree with my assessment that it is a content dispute and doesn't belong on ANI in the first place, then you should comment to that effect yourself. Although I may be wrong in this impression, I'm sure plenty of off-topic threads get closed by users who have already commented that they think they are off-topic.
(edit conflict) The above was originally written as a response to And I'm telling you that you would be challenged, as you are deeply involved in the discussion, and your violation would not be merely a technical one.
May I point out that you have a habit of assuming that anyone who disagrees with you "hasn't actually read the discussion"? As in the editor who expressed an opinion in the discussion in question who you told to "Buzz off". [77] You are one of the primary people involved in the discussion in question, and have expressed strong and definite opinions about it. That makes you totally involved, and therefore any close by you would be highly inappropriate. I'm rather surprised you don't see that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to follow up, it is a logical fallacy to say that because I haven't expressed an opinion in the AN/I discussion in question, that I can't have an opinion about whether you should close the discussion, which is a totally different question. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Please stop wasting others' time and effort with these pointless hypotheticals about what they "should" and "shouldn't" do; I already said I wouldn't do it (hence my making this request that you have for some reason decided to filibuster). If you want to waste your own time with pointless hypotheticals, do it in your own user space. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess this is something about which we differ. I am always happy to learn something new from one of these discussions and, amazingly enough, even to change my !vote, action or opinion based on the new information. You, for instance, might learn the correct meaning of "filibuster", since nothing I've posted here should get in the way of an uninvolved admin closing the discussion you posted about, given that my comments were all about your suggestion that you could "get away" with closing it yourself, not with whether it should be closed or not. In any case, I think it's been well-established that your closing would be a bad idea, so there's really no reason to continue this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I too am always happy to learn new things, but I already knew that it would have been technically out of line for me to close the thread myself, similarly to how ot was technically out of line for Drmies to do this but no one ever challenged him because it was an obvious close that all the legitimately involved parties who might have complained had already agreed to. I apologize if the above seemed kind of aggressive; I just really don't like discussing policy minutiae on AN or ANI (where a speedy close is usually what I want and the longer the thread is the less likely anyone will close it) unless they are absolutely relevant to the point of the thread. I'd be happy to discuss minutiae with you on your talk page or mine (assuming neither or us is still holding a grudge after that unpleasantness two years ago; I'm not, partly because in my mind it's overshadowed by our somewhat-indirect-but-positive interaction from three years ago), or on, for instance, WT:INVOLVED or WT:CLOSE. I open AN threads to get an admin's attention when I want something closed and I think it's pretty clear-cut (and you haven't changed my mind on that point) or when technical reasons make it the best place (the above thread about another user's IBAN for example), and having general discussions about policy points that are peripherally related is usually not on the agenda. I don't think this is going to work for its original purpose at tis point, even if we collapsed all the discussion about whether I would be in violation if, hypothetically, I had performed the close myself, and the ANI thread in question is already one foot in the grave that Sigmabot has already dug for it (technically the latest archive page was created by SwisterTwister, but you know what I mean). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why one month? First-time blocks are normally for shorter durations if they're not indefinite. I've given a 24-hour block with a warning that further vandalism will lead to longer blocks. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Note that User:LeonardoIannelliCOMPUTE is one of the people who in the past created Talk:Bob Pony as a soft redirect to User:TheBobPony, and edited User:Bob Pony in the past for things like this. Note also the edit summary "Still, fuck Bob" used by Leonardo the day before Bob Pony first edited his user page. Simply blocking both indefinitely might have been the better option here. These users clearly know each other and waste our time with their fooling around. Fram (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting; I had not noticed that. As I'm about done with my lunch break, would you mind doing it? Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I'ld rather not take action here myself, I listed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MDMCK10/Archive a while ago, and now blocking the people I then accused of sockpupetry would seem like making an end run around SPI to get the desired result anyway. Apparently they aren't socks, but they clearly know each other outside enwiki and use enwiki to play games (I haven't looked at the link provided by Bob Pony, not really interested). Bob Pony has 5 mainspace edits, months ago. Leonardo has a few more, but also things like Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Otto. Some action, mentoring if someone seems potential or blocking if no one sees potential, seems necessary, but I'm not the person to block here. Fram (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I need some help to understand en.wikipedia way of handling regarding to {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}. I need it for the purpose of establishing a way of handling the same issue for he.wiki. In he.wiki the template added to files with free license automatically probably be external tool. No idea which tool. I can see that her it is not the same and the template added manually or by bot. how this system works her, how the bot/s work her. --geageaTalk 11:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
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. Non-admins are also welcome to subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
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.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Articles deleted. Brianga (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have nominated the articles 9987, 3183, 9622, 9966, 9847, 9106, 9168, 9682 and 9361 for deletion all separately. It has been mentioned to me that it would have been better to nominate all of these articles together in one single AfD. However I think it wouldn't make sense to delete all of these nominations and then create a whole new one. Could an administrator help me out with this? CatcherStormtalk 22:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
If the nominations had been untouched, they all could have been combined, but combining the voted-on nominations would be quite confusing. Since four of them haven't yet gotten any votes, I'm going to merge those ones. For future reference, the process is really easy — just create the AFD at one title and add a comment saying "This nomination also covers article 2, article 3, etc". I won't need to use any admin tools to merge these ones, since I'll just be redirecting three of them to the fourth one and then removing the three from the daily log. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There are couple of bots that have been on a spree resizing images so in the last two day 600+ image files have appeared in the category and need the old revisions deleting. It can be a bit mind-numbing so any help appreciated before the backlog gets into the 000s as has happened before. Nthep (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
On it. It'd be nice if that JS tool reloaded the page for confirmation. Mackensen(talk) 13:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
A bot may be incoming in the somewhat-near future to handle that maintenance category. ~ Rob13Talk 15:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I knocked down about a hundred earlier, and might do some more later. Not so bad with the second JS extension, two keyboard shortcuts and on to the next one. Prop Netflix open in a separate always-on-top window and it's easy street :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I do a significant proportion of these but was traveling for a few days. There is also serious consideration of turning this over to a bot (mind-numbing is an apt description) (Sorry, missed that Rob already mentioned the bot)--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
OP provided with relevant information---S Philbrick(Talk) 18:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a procedural note that I have revoked Yschilov's EC status for clear GAMING (500 sandbox edits made in order to edit ECP/1RR pages). Primefac (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Sandiego91's rights have similarly been revoked. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Primefac I think we should standardize a message when this type of activity is done. I put a note on Yschilov's page that perhaps we could model it on? — xaosfluxTalk 14:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that's a very good idea. I've created {{ECgaming}} for this purpose. I'm open to suggestions on its improvement. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably amendment from Arbitration committee is needed to deal with that.In my opinion the best course of action that is status will not be granted automatically but via relevant admin board--Shrike (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Shrike for revoked EC users it will never automatically return. — xaosfluxTalk 15:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
My suggestion that it will be not granted automatically at all.--Shrike (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
That would be a fairly significant change to the process and would require a community RfC, while you are free to start one I do not think it will get wide support. — xaosfluxTalk 15:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Under what authority can you revoke EC access? Did you open an AE action? Did ARBCOM voice their opinion on what type of 500 edits are required? I'm pinging Sandstein since he keeps saying similar things when cases like this are brought to AE. Sir Joseph(talk) 15:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Sysops can change user groups. In both of these circumstances it was painfully obvious that the users in question were artificially inflating their edit count via spurious sandbox edits in order to reach EC status and edit controversial pages. This is GAMING. I started this post to increase transparency and explain my actions, though I'm not surprised it has turned into a discussion. Maybe it will spur changes to occur. Primefac (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore, did you follow the guidelines set forth at GAMING? "A warning from an administrator is usually the best way to prevent gaming, because a clear warning should help correct both good-faith mistakes and bad-faith games. If an editor ignores a warning and repeats their behavior, or if they find new creative ways to achieve the same disruption, it is more likely that they are gaming the system in bad faith." Sir Joseph(talk) 15:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
How is it gaming? ARBCOM says 500 edits, it doesn't specify what type of edits. That is the problem with the text of ARBCOM, but to call something gaming becasue a new editor is following the policy is not necessarily true. Sir Joseph(talk) 15:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, I'm going by Wikipedia:Gaming the system § Abuse of process. I know you can't see the edits since they have been deleted, but both users added 500 characters to their sandbox and then sequentially removed one after the other until they hit the EC limit. If they had made 500 legitimate edits to various sandboxes where they were improving drafts or testing things out, I wouldn't have an issue. This is clearly not that case. Simply put, they were not following the policy, they were abusing the policy.
As a minor note, how would I have "warned" them about not gaming the system to get EC? They were already granted the right. If anything, they have now been warned (and told how to "properly" gain EC status). Primefac (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, ARBCOM rulings have to be followed to the letter, and if they are unclear it's ARBCOM's problem. Those editors made 500 edits. Firstly, if they're new editors, how would they know that sandbox edits don't count? ARBCOM doesn't say "500 mainspace edits." All it says is "500 edits." Sir Joseph(talk) 15:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This is a new area to have to deal with, and these are facets that may need stronger clarifications, for reference here is one related discussion at PERM: Special:PermaLink/759416764#User:Marlo_Jonesa. — xaosfluxTalk 15:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, I hope you don't mind I've reverted your closure because this needs more discussion. Primefac, are you aware of this arbitration motion? It explicitly bars administrators from removing extendedconfirmed either as a discretionary sanction or as an alternative to standard arbitration enforcement procedures. My interpretation of this is that extendedconfirmed can be removed for gaming the system, but it must be done via WP:AE, not as a unilateral administrative action related to the ArbCom case. It might be a good idea to ask ArbCom to relax this to allow removal as a discretionary sanction when clear gaming has taken place, but until that happens, admins should probably go to AE to be safe. ~ Rob13Talk 16:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think Primefac did anything wrong, given the context of those Arbcom statements. He didn't remove the user right as a discretionary sanction nor did he remove it as means of bypassing defined arbitration enforcement procedures, he removed it because the user clearly shouldn't have had it and gamed the system to get it, something that the motion makes no mention of. More simply, I dont believe those statements are broad enough to disallow any removal of the user right, only the removal as it pertains to avoiding current processes related to discretionary sanctions and arbitration enforcement. Sam Walton (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not asserting wrongdoing, just trying to clarify how things should be done in the future. I've been told by an arbitrator that removing the right at all is questionable under that motion, so I don't think this is as settled as some people think. ~ Rob13Talk 16:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
BU Rob13, I did not know about that motion. We should probably let the arbs know about this discussion so they can weigh in. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13:, that motion was intended to prevent removal of extended confirmed from someone who gained it legitimately, but who was misbehaving at an article; removal can't be used as a sanction without consensus at AE, and other sanctions (e.g. topic bans) are preferred. What @Primefac: did here, reverting a clear GAMING violation, is fine. Admins have been doing that for quite a while, I've done it myself, and I'll continue to do it myself. This isn't really arbitration enforcement, t's normal adminning. Depending on how Primefac worded the note in the log and the message on their talk page, the worst that needs to happen is making it clear this is not an AE action (if it isn't clear already, I haven't looked, just responding to ping). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
In passing, a proposal to issue a clarification re obvious gaming of EC criteria is under discussion on the arbcom mailing list. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
All of these are G6 candidates, because someone created a batch of useful pages in projectspace by error instead of creating them in mainspace as should have been done. They've been redirects since they were moved to mainspace in 2010; normally we don't delete old redirects, but when a page is in projectspace, nobody's going to be linking to it merely because nobody's going to see a page that's in projectspace. With help from JJMC89 at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks, I have a list of project-to-mainspace redirects; I'd appreciate help from other admins in examining each one and either deleting it or removing it from the list, because a ton of these are artifacts of pagemove vandalism or unintentional page creation in projectspace. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
A waste of time for humans to examine each page. I think someone could easily write a bot to delete all pages with a single line of edit history. Either way, what's the harm in letting the redirects stay there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.6.159.77 (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't done manually, it was sone using a semi-automated tool. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 19:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Speaking generally about the Project → article space redirects, if a page is obviously created in the wrong namespace and then moved to the correct place the resulting redirect may be deleted under criterion WP:CSD#G6 ("pages obviously created in error"). If the page was moved within an hour of creation then the redirect can be deleted by bot with an error rate that is going to be almost (if not exactly) zero. Everything else should be looked at by a human - many will also be G6 candidates but not all will be. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).
This post related to a specific problem, dispute, user, help request, or other narrow issue, and has been moved to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI).
A few days ago I've started editing Tourism in Georgia (country) article, I study tourism in university and thanks to that background tried to find every useful material what is in connection with Georgian Tourism. You can see how the article enlarged after my updates and new materials before and after. Working on the article I decided that it will also useful to include UNWTO classification for Georgia, in a tourism industry and reports this classification is wide used since UNWTO is the main tourism international organization. In that classification, you can see tourist arrivals, receipts, annual change and many other thigs. In general, the classification shows how strong or weak is a country in comparison to its neighbors or world countries. Here you can see about what material is the dispute ►[78]. After some time appeared User:Chipmunkdavis and made some improvements but he also removed that material about UNWTO classification. As I understood from his summaries he underestimates that international organization's role (maybe mostly because of incompetence in tourism). I restored his remove and opened discussion on his talk page. You can see that discussion's result. Instead of cooperating with me and having good faith he 3 times reverted (1, 2, 3) that material violating WP:3RR, he could ask me for more explanations but his only goal was revert and remove. Also, he thinks that this material is there only for Georgia's promotion as the European country, and he also said that is why I removed Asian category, but I wrote why I did so because according to the WTO classification Georgian tourism industry is a part of European tourism. You can see that in the end, I tried luck to solve the dispute without a third party but his answer convinced me that further discussions will not have a result and will be only edit-wars. One thing that really irritates is his position that he is master of wiki content and his the only truth and others have no rights or importance, you can place tons of arguments but none will be heard. He claimed that UNWTO classification is not used and it is not important (why?). In favor of me, I have my tourism study background and this excel file of Georgian National Tourism Administration's report where countries are classified under the UNWTO classification what once more proves that this classification is important and Chipmunkdavis is wrong. All in all what does wrong the material? it gives more information about particular country's positions in its tourism region, I think a problem is when we have a lack of information than information in details.--g. balaxaZe★ 12:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Dear admins, please do something about this. It really bothers me that this factual error on the main page hasn't been corrected yet. --Mihai (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Someone will probably take a look at this, but for future reference the page you want to report this sort of problem at is here which usually gets a fast response. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
If an article of SvG is not salvageable I.e. None of the information in it is sourced and no sources can easily be found, what should be the correct procedure for deletion? I suggested maybe speedy deletion tag with custom rationale "SvG article not supported by sources". Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
As someone involved with this, I would support such a temporary CSD criterion similar to the one for Neelix's redirects.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
As the person who started that discussion, I would also support a temporary CSD criterion. Keeping completely unverifiable articles around is not only wasting the time of everyone who tries to fix them, it's creating the risk that someone will move the article back to mainspace even after it's been found to be unverifiable. (Hopefully nobody involved in the cleanup would actually do that unless they found new sources, but it's not a risk I really want to take.) TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 13:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Any help with this so we can get rid of BLP violations a bit quicker? Thanks. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 09:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm trying to delete BLP violations and a couple of non-notable people, but my CSDs are getting challenged. Unless something gets done, people will start using MfD, which is slow and will cause that to get bogged up. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The rules absolutely require us to gain community consensus before creating a new speedy deletion criterion. If this is a situation that doesn't admit of delay, and we need to ignore the rules, let's just delete the pages in question instead of creating a new speedy deletion criterion; it will make for less confusion than adding a new criterion in such circumstances, and multiplying speedy-deletion criteria in general has the potential to cause confusion. Moreover, both X1 and X2 were written for absolutely huge groups of pages, and this sounds like a tiny group compared to those; enacting an X3 for them, with or without the normal process, would be a waste of a criterion. I won't advocate speedy-deleting or not-speedy-deleting these pages, but if it's as significantly problematic as it sounds like from your words, IAR speedy deleting these may be an appropriate route. Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I do love the Kafkaesque nature of this place. We have a ton of BLP violations, but we have to get "community consensus" to get rid of them. By the time we have that consensus, it'll probably be way too late, or it will be a raft of editors who've not had any dealings with the initial case all going down the oppose route. WP:NOTBUREAU anyone? LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 08:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Did you read anything beyond my first sentence? Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
In principle, we can speedy delete pages with unverified info as hoaxes, I just do not feel this is an appropriate application of that criterion. However, if community thinks so, I can just start speedy deletion, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
We can always use MfD instead, which would be a massive pain for everyone. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The main problem with IAR speedy deletions under G6 or something, which was my original thought on how to address these, is the last time that was tried (for the Neelix redirects) there was a big fuss about abusing G6 for things that don't really fit under it. This is how we got the X criteria, except by the time we actually get consensus for one of those we'll be a good bit of the way through the 90-day cleanup period... TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 04:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd say there's consensus here to handle these via speedy deletion. Call it whatever you want. There was clear broad community support for a review and delete unverified drafts process at the initial ANI. ~ Rob13Talk 09:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Problem is admins and other experienced users are calling the CSDs invalid. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I looked at a few SvG articles which have been moved back from draft to mainspace. As explained at User talk:Tbennert, I already moved four of his moves back to draft space, as they continued to have the original problems (like a Sports-reference link which didn't work, and a list of competitions or medals not sourced to anything). he mad a lot more SvG moves which I haven't checked yet.
One article, Draft:Aleksandra Cotti, was moved back because not only were the original problems not tackled, but Tbennert succeeded in adding an incorrectly unsourced fact (winning an olympic medal). Two hours after being moved back to draft space, it was again moved to the mainspace, without any changes, by user Inwind. I explained the actual problem at User talk:Inwind#Draft:Aleksandra Cotti, basically the official olympic source only lists her for 2012 and without a medal, the source indicating that Italy won silver in 2016 doesn't mention her, but the article still draws the conclusion that she won a 2016 silver medal. This may be true, but as it stands the actual sources contradict the article. Inwind as well made a lot of these SvG moves to mainspace, and judging from this one article they all need checking or simple reversal.
Giving the SvG articles a final chance instead of deleting them was meant to bring improvements, not to get the same or worse back into the mainspace. Fram (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
First, thank you for checking these articles on the clean up effort, even a handful can be time consuming. I apologize for my part in making a mess and I am working back through those I have moved. As for adding information, that was almost always because there was a category claiming it. I thought we needed to either include the information in the body of the article or delete the category? If I can't find a source I am deleting them. Also I have found a few instances with incorrect categories. Last, the Olympic information for 2016 has not all been added to olympic.org. I've been breaking this up with a sentence and ref about earlier games, and a separate sentence and ref for 2016. Once the 2016 information is added that will be an additional ref, but for now can't we use a separate ref for 2016 and not have it be considered a contradiction?
I am upset that you find my articles to be worse than before being edited. Obviously I did not make enough corrections, but that does not equal worse. I have added references to validate birthdate and almost every sentence - excepting national team, or represent internationally, as those are already shown in the article. I deleted unsourced information - except for some in the infobox which was missed on several. You have the right to think my edits are damaging the encyclopedia by making it worse. Still it is hurtful and makes me question if any of my edits to the encyclopedia are worthwhile.
Thanks to your notes I found a couple of problems with my process, which I can correct if I edit any more of these articles. I will continue to work through those I have moved to be sure they are more carefully checked. Thank you --Tbennert (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I noted that you went again through your moved articles and improved these, thanks for that. I don't think most of your edits made the articles worse, I said "the same or worse" because too many were the same, and at least one (as explained above) was IMO worse (by adding another sourced-but-not-verified-by-that-source fact). I have no opinion on your edits outside of this cleanup (since I haven't looked at any edits), but the fact that you went back here to check and correct them gives me the impression that you are a good editor who was in this case somewhat too hasty or careless. Fram (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I had a similar issue with another user. They were apparently unaware of the effort and just moved the article back without checking it because they believed that "it belonged" to the main space.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I have moved two other articles (moved to mainspace by Inwind) back to draft space, from the 5 I checked. Draft:Alessya Safronova is one line, one source, and the source doesn't match the fact it is supposed to source (the club). Inwind moved pages at a rate of more than 1 a minute, with only one correction (removing "former") in one case and not making any changes otherwise.
This is not cleanup, this is an end-run against the ANI consensus to delete these pages. Fram (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Note that apparently not all BLPs have been moved to Draft space anyway, for some reason e.g. Mamdum Seldum was never moved. Fram (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Can we perhaps create a list of editors no longer allowed to move SvG articles from draft to mainspace? User:Inwind moved Alena Özel back to mainspace without improvements and with the comment "article ok", despite the only source in the article being this "domain for sale" one. People who don't make any effort in checking these articles but just blindly move them back should not come anywhere near this clanup effort. Fram (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The next one I looked at, Alena Iourieva: one source, which should source that she played in a 2009 championship, but is about a 2013 championship[79], where she isn't listed with the team.[80]. I'll now move all Inwind moves back to draft space as they clearly have not done the necessary work. Fram (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
So far, the only one of those I have encountered who is doing a good job seems to be user:Lugnuts (thanks). Sadly, one of the most prolific of the people moving pages from draft back to mainspace, User:Raymarcbadz, seems not to care about the cleanup effort though and is only interested in getting articles about athletes back to the main space. Raymarcbadz has moved more than 500 pages back to mainspace so far... A few checks reveal
Anna Illés, Hungarian water polo player, has been moved back to the mainspace with one source, [81], which is a roster of Greek players and logically doesn't even mention her.
Do we really need all 500+ moves back here as well and stop them from further participating in this cleanup? Otherwise, what is the point of a community consensus for "delete all" which then gets changed into a "delete all after 1 week" changed into a "move all to draft space" changed into a "move all back to mainspace without bothering to do any cleanup"? Fram (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Speaking from personal encounters, User:Raymarcbadz, appears to have problems reading/listening to advice. I'd propose a temporary stop of him moving articles back to the main space to stop the bleeding. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, why do you always keep on blaming me. Sportsfan 1234, am I a stubborn Wikipedia user? You act again like an administrator and always agree on others against my edits and contributions. You sounded very unfair and unjust, and you've done working on the articles, especially on the Canadians. Come on, don't anticipate me to get pissed. Second, I didn't even understand why the articles of the Olympic medalists, especially the champions, moved from the mainspace to draft, when I observe them? Aren't they relevant to the Games? Sportsfan 1234 and Fram, you would have even contributed and expanded the articles with sufficient information and personal background instead of interrogating and blaming me for the issue on the clean up; thus, these will be saved from the brink of mass deletion. I know that Sander.v.Ginkel did not put enough effort to keep his articles more sustainable, due to several issues on BLP. Let's be honest. I've created more than 4,000 articles about Olympians in a span of two to four years, depending on my time and effort. They have sources and load of information, and I have researched more often. I've only received few BLP warnings, but most of my articles that I created are neatly done without any warnings, unless somebody tries to move them using a different name with a valid reason. Why can't you both contribute instead of cleaning up? Think wiser, okay. Referring back to your case, Fram, I already corrected the references of the aforementioned people on your discussion. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I do not understand what you are trying to say. I think there might be some WP:Competence issues here. Too add more problems to this cleanup I just had to remove a copyrighted line (lifted right off one of the sources) [82] for an article Raymarcbadz moved to the main space. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Also removed copyright from here [83], [84] and here [85]. All of these again were moved by Raymarcbadz Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, having seen the above, read his reply at User talk:Raymarcbadz#Mentioned at AN, and checked that e.g. Carla Frangilli also has only one source, which doesn't mention her, it is clear that Raymarcbadz "cleanups" can't be trusted either, so I will move them all back to draft space. Fram (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Sportsfan 1234 and Fram, I have a question for you both. Why do you move all of the articles made by Sander.v.Ginkel to draft space? When will you bring them back again to become articles? Do you want to delete all of them, and start brand new? I know that these would be cleaned up for about two to three months based on guidelines. But I certainly do not understand why do you leave them with redlinks? Aren't they Olympians. TheCatalyst31, I think you need to reproduce the articles that Fram moved towards the draft space with valid references. I'm not even ready to expand my thoughts about the Olympians with no articles thus far.
Sportsfan 1234, please learn how to shut yourself up when I'm having certain issues with a different user against my edits. You're just expecting me to be kick out of the Olympics project and of Wikipedia, and you're pretending me to be fake and robotic. Excuse me for my personal encounters with Sportsfan 1234, but he tries to let me down instantly. Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
"Why do you move all of the articles made by Sander.v.Ginkel to draft space? " Do you mean that you are not aware of the long discussion which led to this (already much more lenient) solution? Or do you mean why I move them back to draft space after you have moved them to mainspace? If the former, then please familiarize yourself with the backstory first? If the latter, then because you have too often not done any cleanup and are just moving the problems back to mainspace, against the decision reached after a lengthy WP:ANI discussion. "Do you want to delete all of them, and start brand new? " If they don't get thoroughly cleaned up, then yes, it is better to start with brand new articles. "why do you leave them with redlinks?" Why do we leave who with redlinks? According to current consensus, all Olympians are notable enough to have articles (although there is some grumbling about the early Olympics and whether people there are truly all notable). But like many, many other notable people, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have an article now, nor that these are of such high priority that other policies should be ignored simply to have such articles. They can be recreated in due time. Fram (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Since I got pinged: as much as it pains me to admit it, since I've been supportive of the cleanup efforts, there have been far too many articles which were simply moved back out of draft space without any improvements (in a lot of cases, the categories weren't even re-enabled). I understand perfectly well that deleting a bunch of articles on notable people sucks, and I'm a little concerned about ones that were significantly improved by other people after their creation, but there are enough that haven't been improved and have clear issues that this process has already proven itself necessary. I've been working through a handful of them (mostly just the 2016 US Olympians so far), and nearly all of them have required some improvement or additional verification before I could move them back. (Some of them were about medal-winning Olympians but didn't even mention their medals in the article, so it's not like these were our flagship articles on Olympians in the first place.) Also, while I'm planning to help with cleanup and recreation, I don't "need" to do anything; you are just as capable of finding and citing valid references as I am, and having a few redlinks for a while isn't the end of the world. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 13:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm already aware of the long discussion which may provoke a mass clean-up of the articles. Indeed, I'm shocked and distraught about the issue, realizing that many of them have been moved to draftspace for a major clean-up. If I can contribute to the clean-up, much better if I start creating them with a clean slate and enough information (infobox, personal background if necessary, competition results, and supported references), but I can only reproduce them in due time, because I'm still busy working on the descriptions for the NOC articles. Anyway, thank you for your worthy notice, Fram. Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
"Sportsfan 1234, please learn how to shut yourself up" I am sorry but this isn't right, nor should it be allowed. Thoughts @Fram? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Raymarcbadz, moved this article [86] after the above allegations. This article includes a reference to sister Wikipedia site (which to the best of my knowledge is not allowed). I propose a block so this user can read the policy and get it through their head that this is not okay. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Sportsfan 1234, I'm sure it's not allowed. But that's my only way for you not to interfere with the other users against my edits or contributions. And I don't understand why do you want me to block. I've already read the guidelines and undergone the procedures, and you're trying to prevent me from editing. What's the point? If I already moved the article and edited something accurate and relevant to satisfy the guidelines, then so be it. If I would like to expand the article, then that would be much better. You should be aware that the process of creating articles consumes time and effort, ensuring that the sources cited to the content are valid and the details related to the Olympian are accurate and factual. End of the story. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I will comment that it is insane to be moving so many legitimate articles to draftspace. An Olympic gold medalist Christoph Harting, seriously you can't fix the problem rather than making a move? Granted it has been done, and my example was fixed by Raymarcbadz, now there should be a list of those moved articles so an effort to fix them can be made. Instead it looks like we have to go searching through Fram's thousands of contributions. As if the rest of the community will know to do that. If there is a serious problem (and I am not convinced THIS is that egregious of a problem), then there should be a list of affected articles created with it. I once found such a list related to Sander.v.Ginkel once, but finding the list again, working on the list IS NOT EASY TO DO. All this work done in the background, mostly as a gross overreaction to a minor problem by Fram, is screwing up a lot of public content, without an equally public system to fix the damage. Trackinfo (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
There is an equally public system to "fix the damage", it is called Wikipedia. Articles get created by editors, and can be recreated as well. No idea what the "minor problem by Fram" is supposed to be, it was a community discussion and the current solution is a lot more lenient than what was actually concluded. If you want to find the articles by SvG that have been moved to the draftspace, I would advise you not to look through my contribs (which will show only a few hundred: I didn't propose the move to draft space, and I didn't do the original move to draft space either), but through, I don't know, perhaps SvG's contributions? Look for everything he did that is in Draftspace, and you will now which articles need checking and in most cases fixing. Don't imitate a few of your peers though, and don't just move these back to mainspace with the problems unfixed; in such a case, all you moves simply get moved back to draft space. Fram (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for thanks, Fram. For the people concerned about all these articles being moved, surely you realise the issue with tens of thousands of BLP violations that are contained within them? Sure, there may be some good articles, but it can't be taken as read that all those articles can simply be moved back into the mainspace. I urge anyone who wants to save an article to double-check everything, remove anything that can't be sourced then move it back (not the other way around). Lists by subject areas have been created and notes posted on all the relevant project talkpages. Trackinfo - did you not see this? LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 18:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Alessandro Velotto: at the time it was moved to draftspace, it had one source[87], which didn't mention him. Despite this, it was moved to mainspace by Raymarcbadz on 27 January[88]. I moved it back to draft space on 3 February, only to have it moved back to mainspace, with still the same invalid source, a few hours later by user:MFriedman[89] as having "no SvG issues". I again moved it back to draft space, and the second time MFriedman moved it to mainspace they corrected the source. All's well that ends well? Well, not really, we now have an article on an Olympic bronze medal winner (unsourced, but in the infobox and seemingly correct) where the text of the article doesn't even mention this Olympic bronze medal, but only a participation at the 2015 World Championships.
People correctly claim that subjects like Velotto are notable and should have an article. But do they then not deserve an article which at least mentions his most notable achievement, with a source, in the actual text? Now this has been moved three times to draft space before anyone finally corrected the lone source, and it is still rather disgraceful that this is the article we have on him. Why do people care so much about rushing this back to mainspace if they can't be bothered about the actual contents anyway? Fram (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Pretty poor just to move that back without sourcing his main claim to fame (sic). Esp. as it wasn't hard to source it in the first place! LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 10:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, and agreed. Fram (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
With regards to Sander v Ginkel, if the issue of copyright violations like [90] had come up in the lengthy discussion about his work, I guess he would have been indef blocked for sure, and his articles all deleted. What to do now is less clear. It's one more thing to check for in his articles for those willing to do actual cleanup of his work. Fram (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
See also Draft:John Conway (water polo) where I just removed a copyvio from [91]. It seems as if nearly every SvG articles which has some additional text (beyond the "he was born there, competed in that sport, was at these championships") is in fact a copyvio. Luckily there aren't too many where he actually produced any text. Fram (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure this is the correct place but could a look be taken at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vardan Sholinian. It was not deleted so not in the domain of deletion review but the whole debate has been rife with SPA's (I am loath to yell for SPI) and it was followed by a non-admin closure (also by a SPA). Is there a more correct place to bring this up.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Well...I will look at it later, but you could bring it up at deletion review. Deletion review also covers...."appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion." Lectonar (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Will do and I appreciate the additional look see.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I reopened the AFD as the close was totally inappropriate. It should probably be relisted, though honestly, the consensus of editors who are not sockpuppets or SPAs is pretty clear. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The vote is so strong for deletion that I see no reason to relist it a second time. On the other hand, if it's attracting sockpuppets, that woulkd tenf to be a good reason to close it quickly, once it's ben open long enouugh and has clear consensus. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for closing it, I did comment to the article's deletion. Additionally there were a number of accounts that were struck and blocked as socks per a CU. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not see a consensus to overturn Eggishorn's closure. Attempts to relitigate the substance of the RFC are not the purpose of a closure challenge. This discussion has also become quite stale so a closure is needed. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-admin Eggishorn closed the RFC with the comment that while the numbers were similar, the KEEP votes had more policy on their side. I ask for a reconsideration. The only policy the keep votes had were BLUDGEON. Quite simply, the RFC is whether or not Jews are of Middle Eastern descent.As one of the "Remove" votes pointed out, a category is all or none and can't have exceptions. Most of the Jews in the world are not of ME descent. The keep votes kept using tendentious arguments that 1,000 years ago the Jews were of ME descent, therefore all Jews today are as well, and quite laughingly, they assert the same with converts, they marry into the ME descent so they also get ME descent. I ask that the RFC be overturned. The clear policy AND consensus by non-SPA users is to Remove. Ask yourself the following question, should we put all people in the CAT of African Descent? That is basically the argument that the RFC now uses.
Furthermore, some of the keep votes (and the closer) confuse the Jewish homeland (in terms of religion) and descent. While it's true that the Jewish homeland is in the Middle East and yes, Jews pray to return to their homeland, that doesn't mean their descent is from the ME. A convert prays the same thing. The homeland of the religion is in the ME but you can't say the same thing for the millions of Jews who don't have ME descent. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 21:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for raising your concerns. I recognize that closing such an evenly-!voted on RfC could be contentious. That said, I believe that it was stale and it was necessary to bring a conclusion to the table, particularly given the RfC age. To expand on the closing comment, my first concern in such a RfC is, in keeping with NOR, always to view the sources. While it is easy to cherry-pick sources for either contention, the breadth and depth of the sources provided by those arguing for "Keep" was more impressive and convincing. Also, in order to remove content editors proposing removal as a positive change need to create consensus for that change. This is in keeping with WP:TALK#USE and BRD. The end result of considering the sources and the applicable policies lead me to highlight: ...the strength of reference sources and policy-based arguments... and I believe that is the best way to provide a policy-based close.
As a side note: I don't see evidence of SPA's as I understand the term is generally used. Nearly every one of the "Keep" !voters have significant histories prior to the RfC and I do not see "edits primarily on Hebrew- and Judaism- related articles" as and SPA. Thanks again. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 21:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
edit conflict I do not believe I state anywhere what I think the Jewish Homeland is or should be. Indeed, had I done so, I would not be able to claim I was non-involved. I simply evaluated the arguments and evidence presented. Thanks. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 21:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I also wanted to appeal this closure. In a case where the votes are so divided, 7 - 7, per WP:BURDEN the result should be "no consensus for inclusion of this category". I argued this as point #8 of the "remove" votes, and I urge you to review my other points as well. Especially I feel that point #1 was ignored, arguing that the sources (which were mentioned by the closing editor as well) do not relate to any individuals, which is what categories tag in the end, so is not appropriate. By the way, please note that for most of its existence, this category was not part of the contested categories, and is still not so at the present. Debresser (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
As I stated above, I did not simply count either the !votes (If I had, there would be no reason to not call them simply votes) or the sources provided. I am confused by your point about ignoring sources and yet mentioning them. If you rephrase, I may be able to provide a better answer. Thank you. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 21:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify, that the keep votes (and possibly you) are confusing Jews as a people and individual Jews. I am not from the Middle East. A category has to be true all across the board. This was a bad close and should be reverted. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 21:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I will not make judgments here about the confusion or understanding of another editor, but for my own part, I can accept the potential proposition that individual people are not the same as "the people." I have no personal opinion as to whether the proposition is correct in this case, as expressing one would become a supervote. The Keep votes had, I felt and continue to feel, better sources and therefore align to policy (especially NOR) better. If an admin believes I am wrong, they can certainly overturn, of course. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 21:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
And yet you would have my Wikipedia article listed as from the Middle East, which is clearly not true. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 21:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I would not have you do or not do anything. Your argument for overturning the close seems to be moving towards: "I don't like how the result of the discussion would treat me." I, unfortunately, can't really reply towards that. I am not trying to make a judgment about you or anyone else. I am only trying to evaluate the RfC discussion in the light of referenced sources and policy. The counterfactual argument you are proposing would seem to require another discussion on the talk page. WP:NAC says: Non-admins are similarly expected to promptly justify their decisions when required. I cannot justify the decision of others, only my interpretations of policy and consensus. WP:Consensus states that consensus is neither a simple count nor required to be unanimous. After a long period of inactivity, I thought, and continue to think, that rough consensus is the best that discussion was likely to generate.Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 22:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Then you haven't read the RFC or know what the category is. As it stands now, based on your closing of the RFC, EVERY article on Wikipedia that has the category of Jewish Descent, will also be placed under Middle East descent which is not factual. As mentioned earlier, a category has to be true 100% of the time. Your close makes a false category the norm on Wikipedia. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 22:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Two things: 1) Yes, I did read not only the entire RfC and verified as much of it as I could but I also read the extensive discussion prior to it. 2)You are consistently confusing closing the discussion for my expressing an opinion on the category or its contents - I do not have such an opinion and if I did, I would not have in good faith closed it. If you disagree with the outcome of the discussion due to your understanding of substance, I'm afraid I can't give you what you are looking for. I closed it on reasons of policy. Your counterfactual argument is something I can't really address. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 22:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Then can you do me a favor and show me one source that says all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent? 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 22:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I cannot. I am not involved in the discussion and I will not address the substance of the discussion. If you want to make an argument that I misread the extensive list of sources in the discussion, I am all ears. I would point you towards the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE page @Only in death: has already linked to, particularly this point: You are more likely to succeed in your AN request if you focus on 1. "underlying policy/guideline" and 2. "strength of argument". ... Users who try to subvert consensus by appealing to other venues such as WP:AN should be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP.. Thank you. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 22:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
1)We're here already. 2) You said the KEEP votes had the policy and sources on their side, so please tell me which source says all Jews are of ME descent. That is the ultimate question. If you can't answer that, then you should not have closed the RFC. You did a piss poor close and now are trying to defend it by not answering my question. You said you read the sources and policies, so please answer my question. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 22:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not answering your question because you keep asking me to defend a position I did not take. Closing a question is not the same as not agreeing with one side or the other. I keep saying the references favored Keep because that is true. You are free to go and look at them yourself. @The Human Trumpet Solo: alone posted 38 references @Bubbecraft: another 19 and an IP editor added more. No editor arguing for Remove posted a single verifiable reference. That is what I considered. Not whether I thought Jews were Middle Eastern or not. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 23:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 23:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how that follows. Your entire argument in favor of Remove was: ...the Jewish religion originates in the Middle East, Jewish people, including converts, originates wherever they originate from, which may or may not be the Middle East.. No reference to policies and certainly no actual references. If you feel that your identity is offended by the categorization, that is not closure review. I'm sorry to keep making a point you feel doesn't address your concern, but I am not making the assertion that Jewish=Middle Eastern. I am not going to defend a position I am not taking. I realize that seems hollow to you, but I can't take responsibility for something I never said, as you seem to wish me to do. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 23:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, @Bus stop:. Yes, as I said above, I verified as many as I could. Many of them were irrelevant or only minimally on-point but at least there were references in support. Thanks. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 00:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Eggishorn—can you point to even one source that supports the notion that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent? Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
That is the same question I asked earlier. That is, as I pointed out, the ultimate question. Eggishorn claimed to read the sources and refs, so it should not be too difficult to mention one source. After all, he closed the RFC. If he can't even find one source, then obviously the close was in error. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 01:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
One thing for reviewers to keep in mind, one very major reason why many Remove votes didn't list sources is because of WP:BLUE. The keepers are saying that Jews are of ME descent. All that is needed for Remove is to say, that it's factually not true. There are millions of Jews who aren't of ME descent. Therefore you can't have the category and the close was a poor close. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 00:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I cant see where Sir Joseph has attempted to discuss the decision with the closer per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE before bringing this to AN. Given his above posts this also seems to be veering sharply towards re-litigating the RFC. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The proposition that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent is just plain silly. No source says this. Common sense can tell you that this cannot possibly be true. Anyone can convert to Judaism. By what stretch of the imagination is a convert to Judaism of Middle Eastern descent? Unless of course they are of Middle Eastern descent, and then a source would have to support that. The Category should be meaningful—not just a joke. Sources should support that all people in Category:People of Middle Eastern descent are of Middle Eastern descent. The Category becomes a meaningless artifact of how silly Wikipedia can be if all Jews are placed in "Category:People of Middle Eastern descent". Sources are the key and there certainly are no sources saying that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. We shouldn't even be having this conversation. That is how silly it is. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely: the argument that an evenly balanced Rfc should error on the side of caution and be closed as an outcome against the inclusion of the contentious material, is an argument that I made in the discussion, and was directly addressed to any future closing editor.
I think that it was incorrect to decide for addition of contentious material in a so closely balanced Rfc, and would like admins to review the decision to the contrary in view of WP:BURDEN.
Likewise, I think that the closing editor erred in balancing the other policy and guidelines based arguments as well, and would like admins to review his decision to rely on sources that refer to the whole of the people in general when deciding about a category that will be applied to individuals of that people, who were not the subject of those sources.
Since the closing editor did not base himself on any clear consensus, which was absent and the closing editor stated so himself, but instead used his own judgment, which again he stated clearly himself, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says that his closure is subject to review. Debresser (talk) 00:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course it is subject to review, that is not in dispute and I quoted that from the applicable policy. I did not state that there was no consensus. What I actually said was that it was close only in terms of vote-counting, which an RfC closer is specifically warned against doing. I used my judgment to the extent that I tried to best evaluate the arguments against policy and sourcing. I did not attempt to substitute my judgment about the substance of the dispute for the rough consensus that I found. Again, consensus is not unanimity. Thank you. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 00:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
And yet you can't point out one source in favor of the close. If there is one source that says all Jews are from the Middle East, then it shouldn't be to difficult to find, since you closed the RFC in favor of that after reading the sources, as you claim. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 01:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Does this concern this edit which adds Category:People of Middle Eastern descent to Category:People of Jewish descent? Does the close at category talk mean that edit will be restored? And that tells the world that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent? If so, Eggishorn should stop digging in to defend the close, and the normal bureaucratic responses should be halted. The proposition is blatantly absurd and will be fixed, although not without the normal drama apparently. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You might want to check a bit further back as well as the archives. This has been going on for a few years with it being in there, then removed, then returned etc. Previous discussions have generally had the same result on the talkpage - better (well more policy and guideline referencing) arguments made for inclusion. Only in death does dutys end (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, please be a bit kinder to the closing editor. He is not a party to the discussion, he just interpreted its results. I would like to see other admins address the two questions I asked above, whether the close does right to WP:BURDEN and whether it correctly applies categories to articles about individuals as opposed to a group. I would also like to ask Eggishorn, whether he thinks he took these two arguments into account and in the appropriate measure. Debresser (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Debresser: Thanks you for your questions. I realize that this discussion and the RfC that spawned it veers into issues of identity. Such issues are a difficult subject with which the project has always had to wrestle and, given human nature, probably always will treat problematically. To echo your statement, I would also appreciate one or more administrators' attention at this time.
To answer your questions, however, yes, I think I took them into account appropriately. I tried to follow the standards of WP:NACD and WP:NADC. Those guidelines ask the closer to not use their own judgment about the question posed in the RfC as a substitute for the points raised in the discussion. This RfC discussion certainly included editors making arguments about the individual/group question you raise. In evaluating those points, I considered that many editors simply made brief statements about the self-evident correctness of their position while providing neither references nor policy-based justifications. I weighted those arguments less-heavily than those that did provide such support. If those making such self-justified arguments had instead also provided policy or reference support, I would not have discounted them. I would then have closed the RfC differently or left it alone entirely.
Much of the discussion above has been either to assert that I should have made an independent judgment about the RfC question or that I did in fact make such a judgment, only agreeing with the "wrong" side. I hope the above paragraph gives some insight into the process by which I attempted to avoid that. It should go without saying that I recognize editors can disagree in good faith with me on whether I achieved that goal. I would hope any poor soul reading through this blizzard of pixels could agree that I tried to make a policy-based close of a languishing request. Thanks again. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 14:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
But again, you stated you read the sources. So please tell us which source states all Jews are from the Middle East? If you can't answer that, you should not have closed the RFC. You can't close an RFC without reading the sources, so this shouldn't be too difficult for you. I'm not sure why you are having trouble answering the question. I reiterate that this was a terrible close, and the fact you're digging in, shows that you perhaps shouldn't be closing contentious RFC's. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 14:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You and I are not going to agree on this. Any further attempts on my part to explain why I think your oft-repeated demand is misplaced are likely only to give rise to further acrimony. I have stated my reasons in reasonably clear English and in many different ways. Anything else I say at this point would be simply repeating myself. Your position is equally clear, both to me and to others reading. I can only hope that such others will eventually come along and break this discussion out of wallowing back and forth over the same ground. Thank you. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 15:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know why you think my demand is misplaced. You stated you went through the sources before you closed the RFC. I, and Bus Stop, have asked you to name one source. It shouldn't be too difficult. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 15:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Not required. Have you an argument based on WP:CLOSECHALLENGE? Because so far you have yet to make one. Other than 'I dont agree with it' or 'its wrong'. See the section titled Challenging other closures. The only part you appear to be challenging the closure under is 'if you believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion'. However you have not provided evidence it was not a reasonable summation of the discussion, only that you disagree with the arguments of the other side and the result. And your above badgering is clear that you want to relitigate the argument. Which is explicitly not what a closure review is for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I have asked repeatedly for just one source. That is why the close was not valid. As Bus Stop pointed out as well, the sources the Keep gave were not necessarily good sources. As a closer, you are supposed to look at the sources, and the context. If you did so and still closed it as a Keep, then you should have one source handy that agrees with the Keep. Not having one means you didn't do the close properly. Are all Jews from the Middle East? That is the question of the RFC, Eggishorn closed it and should be able to answer the question. It was a bad close, against policy and against common sense. Closing a contentious RFC and then not answering one simple question makes it seem that someone just wanted to close an RFC. I am not re-litigating the RFC, I am asking the closer to name one source. Why is he failing to do so? 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 15:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
(EC) Right so we have clarified your position is 'I dont agree with the other sides argument'. That is not evidence the closer has failed to summarise the discussion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Because I already pointed to over 47 references (versus 0) in the discussion at hand. It is not either appropriate nor required for me as a closer to go find on demand the sources that would satisfy you. I can't state it more plainly than that.Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 15:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, you looked at 47 references, so I again, don't know why you can't point to one that says all Jews are from the Middle East. As Bus Stop pointed out, those sources are cherry picked and out of context. You should know that by you reading them. You say you looked at the 47 references, so please tell us which one says what the Keepers say it says. Your continuing to dig in without answering one question is telling. All you have to do is bring a source that says all Jews are from the Middle East. (And that is why the Removes didn't need to bring any sources, all they had to do was state that not all Jews are from the ME.) 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 15:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
All you have to do is present some evidence the closer has failed to summarise the discussion. Please do so instead of re-litigating the same argument. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe I and Bus Stop already did. The closer has stated he read the 47 references and I say he didn't. The close shows he didn't, and by him refusing to answer my question just reinforces that. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 15:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah so your reason for disputing is 'I dont agree with the close and the closer is a liar'. Glad we are on the same page. Any further reasons for challenging it that have no credibility? Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
This reminds me of the situation over the listing of Bernie Sanders' faith about a half-year back, and central is understanding if we are talking Jewish by bloodline or Jewish by faith (the dichotomy of the name). The Category title ("Jewish descent") and the description of the category all imply the by-bloodline (regardless how far separated) to the ethnicity of the original Jewish people that came from the ME, which thus supports the close by Eggishorn. I would assume that if we took the case of two Caucasian parents that converted to Judaism, that their children would not be considered to be Jewish descendants by the terminology used, so those children (if notable) would not be included in this category. In other words, one cannot chose to become or not become Jewish-by-bloodline, you either are or aren't. If you are and you don't follow Judaism , you would fall into this category. That's how I read this, and again, comes back to understanding that "Jewish" has two very distinct meanings that we have to be careful to separate. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Masem, if you read the Keep votes, you will see that they say a convert "magically" becomes ME descent and it's as if they were there in spirit. Again, that is why the remove votes didn't feel the need to bring sources or references. Being of Jewish descent doesn't mean being of Middle Eastern descent. If we go back to the beginning, then shouldn't every person on Wikipedia have an "African descent" cat? I happen to be Jewish, but I am not of ME descent, and probably more than half of the Jews today are not of ME descent. That is why this is a ludicrous close. In the case of your two Caucasian parents who converted, their children would be of Jewish descent, so how does it make sense to mark them as being of ME descent? 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 15:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
What? There is never going to be a source that says what a Wikipedia category is and what belongs there because they are made up by Wikipedians, to group things together - the very category you are discussing assumes that there are "people", assumes they have a "descent", and assumes such a decent can be "Jewish" (the common meaning of that appears to be Jewish can be something people can descend from and be born with), all assumptions made by Wikipedia that constructed this category (compare, the category does not use the term, "Judaism", which would presumably give it a different meaning). So, your certitude in condemning Eggshorn seems a little much. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
So according to Wikipedia, I am from the Middle East? You make no sense. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 15:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Unless you are a first generation convert, genetic studies indicate yes, you are of middle-eastern descent through Jewish ethnicity - a genetic grouping that is indiginous to the middle-east and found elsewhere due to disapora. Mazel tov! Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
1)Aren't we then all African Descent using your logic? 2) What if I were a first generation (or child of a first generation) convert? I would be of Jewish descent without being from the ME. Is Sammy Davis Jr's kids of ME descent? Again, I'm not sure how many times I can say it but that is why the remove didn't need sources, they had WP:BLUE. Not all Jews are from the Middle East descent. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 16:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Given that Sammy Davis Jr. was a convert to Judaism (rather than being of Jewish bloodline descent), he, nor his kids, would be in this category in question, and thus that's a non-issue. Again, this comes down to understanding that there are two meanings to the word Jewish and being clear which meaning is the one that we want to focus on in this category, which seems hands down to be the genetic relationship, and not the faith-based one. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
That's where you're wrong. The category is explicitly for people of Jewish descent, not religious. As the keep votes even mentioned, a convert should still be listed because it's "as if they become part of the descent." This is not about bloodline, but about the "ethnic" part of it, again, as evident by the category and the survey. The category needs to be factual and "Cat of Jewish descent" is used all throughout Wikipedia for people who have Jewish descent. Putting those people in the ME just falsifies the category. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
As soon as you can justify categorising Sammy Davis Jr of 'Jewish descent' that might become an issue. Converts typically marry other Jews in the first or second generation. Genes spread both ways. Had Sammy Davis Jr's children been notable enough for articles their religion/ethnicity may have been mentioned. There is no evidence their mother was Jewish, so it is unlikely any of them would have a Jewish Descent category. But again this is re-litigating the argument. Which is not the point of a closure review. We get you dont agree with it. We get you think the reasoning is wrong. Given your (and to a lesser extent, Bus Stop's) rather idiosyncratic POV on Jews has consistantly been rejected at the BLP noticeboard and elsewhere, it is not surprising you want to keep focusing on the religious aspect to the exclusion of everything else. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this seems like a very selective way of interpreting "descent" compared to its common English usage and how the category is presented as well as other categories around it. I'm more convinced that the RFC was closed properly because of this. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
So why not put everyone under African descent, using your logic? And why wouldn't Sammy Davis Jr's kids be listed under this category? I think you are editing without having a clue as to what this category is all about. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 16:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Well mostly because he had one child with a non-Jew and the other 3 were adopted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
The Middle East is a geographic location yet Eggishorn says "I realize that this discussion and the RfC that spawned it veers into issues of identity."[92] A person had to have set foot on the land of the Middle East to be of Middle Eastern descent. Alternatively their forebears would have had to set foot on the land of the Middle East. This RfC does not veer into issues of identity. The "issue" in this RfC concerns the landmass known as the Middle East. This is why it is important that we get this right. We can't tell the reader that a subject of a biography is of Middle Eastern descent unless sources actually support the setting of feet upon the landmass of the Middle East. To do so would be to convey incorrect information. Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
And this statement amply demonstrates why I described your views as idiosyncratic. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
If @Bus stop: can distinguish for me how issues of descent and identity are not tied to geographic locations, I may be able to respond. Thanks again. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 16:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Eggishorn—the question is: are all Jews of Middle Eastern descent? The RfC concerns itself with whether all Jewish people should be Categorized as being of Middle Eastern descent. You say "I realize that this discussion and the RfC that spawned it veers into issues of identity." But in fact this RfC does not veer into issues of identity. It veers into issues of geography. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I had thought the question here was: "Did the closer summarize the discussion in the RfC?" The question of the Jewish identity is a very complex one that has been debated for thousands of years and is unlikely to be settled here. I will note, however, that although geography is one of the prime contributors to a number of ethnic group identities (e.g., Irish Americans, German Brazilians, Turko-Persians, etc) I have no problem rephrasing it to: "...this discussion and the RfC that spawned it veers into issues..." connected to deeply-held personal beliefs. Is that better? Thanks for clarifying your question. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 18:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Eggishorn—the intersection here, for the purpose of Categorization, is between those subjects of biographies identified by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as Jews, and that part of the world known as the Middle East. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
According to the Category page in question "This page lists individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish. Please use the Category:Jews for those." So this intersection is not about people that are Jews, but people that are of Jewish descent and are not Jews. --MASEM (t) 19:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, a Jew is of Jewish descent, Masem, if they are not a convert to Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Read the quoted text from the category page again. The category of concern will not include people that are Jews (that is, of the Jewish faith). --MASEM (t) 19:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
But the reliance here, Masem, is on the identification of people as Jewish according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It is from that that we arrive at those who are of Jewish descent. The topic of "Jewish identity" and "deeply-held personal beliefs" as mentioned by Eggishorn is a misplaced focus. Our primary focus in the RfC is a geographic focus. Once a person has been identified as being Jewish or of Jewish descent (according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) we are then asking the question (in the corresponding RfC) if they are of Middle Eastern descent. Bus stop (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
No. That is simply not what I said. When I wrote, "I realize that this discussion ...issues of identity," I was expressing to Debresser my understanding for why this issue is contentious. I was not making any statement about the substance of the RfC. The debate over geographical origins of Jewish people is not for here, and I am not going to take part. I honestly have no opinion about how the categories "should" be decided or included. I thought my offer to reformulate would have cleared that up, but it keeps being twisted into an endorsement of the proposition that Jewish people are Middle Eastern. I don't know how many times I can say I never said that. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 20:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Eggishorn—neither I nor Debresser nor Sir Joseph are talking about "deeply-held personal beliefs" yet you are saying "I realize that this discussion and the RfC that spawned it veers into issues of identity" and "the question of the Jewish identity is a very complex one". You alone are invoking the notion of "deeply-held personal beliefs." These are all quotes from your posts. Wikipedia already has policy in place concerning identifying people by religion. The RfC that you wp:closed has nothing to do with identifying people by religion. It has to do with whether or not all Jewish people should be Categorized as being of Middle Eastern descent, that is, deriving from the Middle East. I think you are getting a bit off-topic with the above quoted comments because Wikipedia policy already resolves issues on religious identity. We are concerned in the corresponding RfC with the geographic area of origin of people that Wikipedia identifies as Jews or people of Jewish descent. Bus stop (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment I would say that the Ethiopian Jews stand as a pretty solid example of Jews who are not of ME descent unless people are claiming that Ethiopia is a Middle Eastern country or that the Falasha are not real Jews. Anyone really want to make either of those claims?? JbhTalk 16:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Black Jews, Cochin Jews, etc. Anecdotally, I know a black women whose parents converted to Judaism. She is obviously then of Jewish descent, but there is no Middle East in her. 🔯 Sir Joseph🍸(talk) 16:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You do realise by their own traditions Ethiopian Jews migrated there from... da da daaaa the middle east (via Egypt) right? Cochin Jews were exiles from... the middle east. Do you actually know what the word 'diaspora' means? Or how genetic spread works? Also no, someone whose parents both converted to Judaism is not obviously 'of Jewish descent'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yup... by tradition, not necessarily or even likely by reality. Essentially what is being argued here it that because the Jews of the Biblical Exodus were from the ME then all Jews are descended from the me. However all Jews are not descended from the Jews of the Exodus. As has been pointed out there have been converts throughout history and their descendants are no less Jewish. Even if the Falasha founding population was from the ME it has been so diluted via intermarriage/converts that the claim of ME descent is ideological and political and even if true for some it is not universiallt true which is what is required for categorization. JbhTalk 17:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes they are of Jewish descent, but they would be of other descents as well. We are all of many descents. Bus stop (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
So I'll ask again, using your logic, why isn't everyone on Wikipedia placed in the category of African Descent? Additionally why would someone who is of Jewish descent not be obviously of Jewish descent? That is what the category is all about. Even those who voted keep, agree that converts are of Jewish descent, they just use some magic to justify that they are also of ME descent. If someone is Jewish and has a child, that child is obviously of Jewish descent. Not sure why that is even a question. Sir Joseph(talk) 16:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
In the common language, "descent" means that one is able to trace/document ones genetic ancestry to a given location (in this case, Jewish-by-bloodline to the ME). We can't readily do the step of going from ME-descended people to Africa for all cases because the genetic line is not fully clear because of a lack of recorded history there.
And further, "descent" is a word applying to the ethnicity/genetic part of a person, not their faith. We don't call people of Christian descent, because faith doesn't carry by genetics, but we can talk of Greek descent or Roman descent. To stress again, there is a desire to mingle the two very-separate definitions of "Jewish" here. When we talk about "descent", the only obvious meaning is that of the Jewish-by-bloodline, not Jewish-by-faith. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Except that the discussion here, Masem, is not about "Jewish descent", it is about "Middle Eastern descent". Bus stop (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Masem - see my comments above about the Ethiopian Jews. They are Jewish by faith and Jewish-by-bloodline however they are a very different population from what we consider ethnic Jews. This was a major issue durring their evacuation through the Sudan in the 80's. JbhTalk 17:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I will also point out a quote from one of our articles;
The only exception to this among Jewish communities is in the Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews); a 1999 genetic study came to the conclusion that "the distinctiveness of the Y-chromosome haplotype distribution of Beta Israel Jews from conventional Jewish populations and their relatively greater similarity in haplotype profile to non-Jewish Ethiopians are consistent with the view that the Beta Israel people descended from ancient inhabitants of Ethiopia who converted to Judaism.[[93]]
"a category is all or none and can't have exceptions" - I don't see that anywhere in Wikipedia: Categorization, and I'm not so sure it's true. For example, our pages Martinique and Category:Martinique is an eventual part of Category:France, which is an eventual part of Category:Europe - though the island Martinique is not part of the continent of Europe by the definition we have in that article. I suspect there are plenty of other examples that categories do, in fact, have exceptions. --GRuban (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I tried to follow that and got stuck in a loop once I got to Europe - Afro-Eurasia - Geography of Europe - Europe.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Reminds me of the old joke about the computer programmer who died following the directions on the shampoo bottle: "Wash, Rinse, Repeat"... Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 19:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Possible futile attempt to refocus discussion[edit]
This discussion has gotten wildly removed from the OP question, which essentially is: did Eggishorn summarize the discussion in the RfC? Just as a reminder, what I said was:
While the divide in opinion is split almost evenly between Keep and Remove !votes... Apparently undisputed
...the strength of reference sources and policy-based arguments leans towards KeepBus Stop, Debresser and most especially Sir Joseph dispute this conclusion. My evaluation at the time was that the Remove !votes did not present policy or reference-based arguments, as our three core content policies (WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV) would urge. Sir Joseph further makes the argument above that WP:BLUE means the Remove voices should not have been expected to make such policy and reference-based arguments (but see also WP:NOTBLUE and WP:POPE).
Could an administrator kindly comment on the closure review piece of this discussion? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs)
Reading only on the RFC arguments, the close in favor of keep seems absolutely correct given that those keep !votes provided sourced evidence that supported their reasonings to keep, while none were given by the remove !votes. Since we follow sources, this is seems like a reasonable close on that argument alone. (There's a whole separate issue about how people take the word "Jewish" that gets conflated in all this, but again, sourcing is everything). --MASEM (t) 19:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Masem—"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article." Yes, there are sources provided, but there are no sources provided (that I could check) that even remotely support the contention that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. Just providing a bunch of links tangentially-related to the question under consideration hardly supports the contention that all Jews or all people of Jewish descent are of Middle Eastern descent. One source does not necessarily substitute for another source. Bus stop (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
(Non-admin) Unsurprisingly given the above, I concur entirely with Masem here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
To quote Eggishorn, "Yes, as I said above, I verified as many as I could. Many of them were irrelevant or only minimally on-point but at least there were references in support." It appears I am in the middle of the Twilight Zone where logic and reason are not to be found. We're about to rule that all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent and nobody seems to think that the decision is just pure bunk? (You also forgot to ping johnuniq and jbhunley as editors who disagree with your close. Sir Joseph(talk) 19:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, we are about to "rule" (in so much as what means on WP) on "People of Jewish descent are of Middle Eastern descent". Nowhere is the argument that this applies to the different class of people that would be called "Jews" (eg Category:Jews). And Eggishorn's closure does seem to this all into account. --MASEM (t) 19:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but that's the same thing which you're not getting. I'm of Jewish descent but I'm not of ME descent. Are you of African descent since the theory is that life originated in Africa? I'm not sure why it's difficult to comprehend that not all Jews are of ME descent, which is what the RFC was questioning, not what you are interpreting it as. Sir Joseph(talk) 19:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually the RFC was explicitly questioning the removal of all geographical categories (ME, Asia etc). Both in Debresser's original phrasing and in the survey subsection. While you are concentrating on specifically the Middle-Eastern one. Likewise its clear from Debresser's own summary that the previous status quo was they were included and there was no consensus to remove them. Even should you want a different result in *this* RFC, the best you are going to get would be a no-consensus result which would defer to the status quo, which was that the geographical categories have been there in one form or another since 2012. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
And being of Jewish descent has no relation to being of a geographical descent, unless that person is of that specific geographical descent. Sir Joseph(talk) 20:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I said that the category was not there for most of the time, and is not there at present. There were a few attempts to add it though. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
In the spirit of refocusing on the real questions here, and since Eggishorn has expressed his consent that admins review his closure, I repeat my two questions:
I think that it was incorrect to decide for addition of contentious material in a so closely balanced Rfc, and would like admins to review the decision to the contrary in view of WP:BURDEN.
Likewise, I think that the closing editor erred in balancing the other policy and guidelines based arguments as well, and would like admins to review his decision to rely on sources that refer to the whole of the people in general when deciding about a category that will be applied to individuals of that people, who were not the subject of those sources. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Overturn close The relative weight of the arguements were very close with most of the Keep being of no better quality than the Remove. Some were simply wrong based on simple fact c.f. the Falasha (That particular issue was not brought up in any !votes but it shows that the discussion missed some fundamental issues.) The wall of sources dose not seem to have anything quoted which speaks to the point of universial ME descent and often seem to conflate religion with heritage. On both sides I see more ideological arguements than anything else. This should have been closed as No consensus - since the logic used by the closer to throw out Remove !votes is equally applicable to most Keep !votes and the sources are not particularly convincinb for the Keep !vote that simply listed them without saying how they were applicable to the question. I would also recommend that a better formulated and widely published RfC be done to bring in outside editors. The regular commenters run the issues into the ground and create walls of text arguing with each other making it unlikely anyone would willingly jump into the snake pit. I also strongly suggest that the "regulars" step back and let some uninvolved editors address this appeal - after all we already know your opinions. JbhTalk 00:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Eh, maybe should have been a "NC" close (I looked at closing it but concluded I didn't understand enough about how Wikipedia generally treats the word Jew (the confusion between the racial group and the religious group) to really feel comfortable). But NC, default to keep, is where I was leaning. So endorse outcome and no strong opinion on keep vs. NC. Hobit (talk) 03:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Hobit—the question in this RfC does not concern whether a Jew is observant, nonobservant, or semi-observant. That is irrelevant to this RfC. We are not concerned in this RfC with a Jewish person's level of religious observance. The question in this RfC is whether all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. If all Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, then we should keep the categorization. If all Jews are not of Middle Eastern descent, then we should not keep the categorization. Certainly some Jews are of Middle Eastern descent, but are all Jews of Middle Eastern descent? Bus stop (talk) 07:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hobit The category is presently absent. Debresser (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, so explain this to be slowly (again, there is a reason I didn't try to close this). A) We have categories for all types of "Jews of X decent", why is this category different? And didn't this cat exist when the RfC started? The original RfC assumes a lot of background knowledge and context that I couldn't figure out in 20 minutes of reading. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hobit—there are some who argue that Category:People of Jewish descent should be added to Category:People of Middle Eastern descent. The argument is that Jews have their origin in biblical times in the Middle East. But we are an encyclopedia and we should require sources before we place all "People of Jewish descent" into a Category for "People of Middle Eastern descent". From the point of view of an encyclopedia the origin of the Jews can be considered shrouded in history. Lineages are not traced back over thousands of years. And numerous people have converted to Judaism over those millennia. Many or most of those converts are not "of Middle Eastern descent". Bus stop (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't this come down to if we are talking about race or religion? If we are talking about the race (which I would argue "of X decent" implies we are), then Middle Eastern makes perfect sense to me. If we are talking about the religion, then it it clearly doesn't make sense. Do you agree with that? Hobit (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know—please explain your reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hobit, the category is on the person. So to use me as an example, am I of Middle Eastern descent? No. The same way I'm not from African descent, even though billions of years ago, I might have been. Sir Joseph(talk) 14:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Less than 2 million. Not billions. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Hobit That was a good question, about the difference between the race and the religion. The correct answer is that "Jew" is defined as both (see Jew). That means that we have to take into account also converts, e.g., who are definitely not of Middle eastern descent. Especially since there have been converts during the whole of the existence of the Jewish people. This argument was made in the discussion, along with many other arguments, both factual as Wikipedia-policy-based. Debresser (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
While the word Jew is defined as both by-bloodline and by-faith, what is keep to the RFC in question is the category Category:People of Jewish descent which has the text "This page lists individuals who are of Jewish descent, but not Jewish. Please use the Category:Jews for those." (also just noticed that this cat includes the cat Category:People of Jewish descent by religion). So clearly the category of concern is by-bloodline, and the Judiasm faith should not be at all part of the discussion, and so the question thus reduces down do if all those of Jewish decent can be effectively traced back some 3000-4000 years to have originated from that group that lived in what we know as Israel today, without asking if the faith followed the bloodline. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
You are missing the point that after some number of generations of conversion (say 10 just for the hell of it) people are likely to claim 'Jewish descent'to be ethnically Jewish. Hell, many, many people have no clue of their geniology beyond four or five generations. Also, yet again, what about the Falasha? They are demonstratively genetically African yet they have a population which has been Jewish since the time of the First Temple. Are they not Jewish? Are non-observant Falasha not ethnically Jewish? Or do you claim that they, unlike ME Jews, lose their ethnic identity if they do not practice their religion?
Yes, I am hammering on this edge case but if something as clear as the Falasha issue can not be addressed how can you address say, Eastern European Jewish families who converted in say 1500. These people would still see themselves as ethnically Jewish but not of ME descent in any meaningful way. As far as I know only select groups such as the Cohenim have even the rough genealogical knowledge to claim to trace their ancestry back 3000-4000 yrs.
The reason I think the RfC in question should be NC is because neither sources nor arguements really addressed these problems. Closing it as Keep would, in effect, endorse an outcome which is both contentious and not properly explored in the RfC. This would make it difficult - at least wiki-politicaly in this topic area - to have a new, clearly written and widely advertised, RfC. JbhTalk 16:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Last edited:16:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
To those people that state that after a few generations after conversion to Judiasm that they are suddenly of Jewish descent, that's simply just misusing the term as understood from its standard English and scientific viewpoints and generally how most of the rest of the world uses it, and those cases should not be considered. Nor would one lose "Jewish descent" by non-practice by the same means. The only real issue along these lines is how accurate the lineage can be tracked back.
I do agree though that for things like the other geographic areas that others of the Jewish originated completely separately from those founded by the Jewish diaspora, compound the issue regarding Middle Eastern (eg the Ethiopian Jews). It does seem to me that when looking, those other groups seem to put value in making sure they call themselves separately than just "Jewish": that is, when we say of "Jewish descent" that implicitly means those descendants of the Jewish nation that was founded in the area we know as Israel, and these other groups do try to identify differently when talking about their bloodlines. But that's not universal, just more predominate view, and I agree that's a complication that might not have been adequately discussed at the RFC. --MASEM (t) 16:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me be the stickler to point out that "Jewish" originally meant "of the Tribe of Judah" and was implicitly a genealogical claim -- that is, descent from the eponymous Judah. Now, I am fully aware that this meaning has changed over the intervening millennia, and I don't think originalism is called for here. Just that we should acknowledge that etymology. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Masem; I think we are coming to the same point re 'descent' from different directions. Yes it is possible to define Jewish origin/ethnicity in such a way as to require/imply ME descent. No it is not practically possible to know whether any individual Jew or person who claims to be ethnically Jewish meets that definition c.f. conversion in the 'deep past' where no one "knows" that their family became Jewish by conversion or not.
With respect to the Falasha, and here I can only give anticdotal evidence, back when MOSES was going on there was a question of whether all Falasha were 'Tribe of Israel' and therefore had a right of return or not. Their faith is more First Temple Judaism and there was some issue of whether they were actually Jews etc (Along with other stupid stuff like they had to go to The Sudan where they would be "refugees" and the US could help them there but not on their own country where, by definition they could not be "refugees". Labels are important.) As far as I know Falasha both consider themselves Jews (not adjective-Jews - Jews and many now practice more mainstream 'modern' Judaism) and have right of return whether they are observant/practicing or not just like any other diaspora population. In order to make the categorization under discussion work requires a claim that Falasha are indeed not Jews-like-other-Jews which would need some serious sourcing to back up and gets into the realm of special pleading, which I do not think anyone is claiming. JbhTalk 17:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Categorization should not be based on assumptions. Those assumptions are probably wrong for any number of reasons, in many instances, and we have no way of guessing how many such incorrect instances exist. I haven't seen any source directly supporting the premise of the Categorization that is being considered. The sources that have been adduced are violations of wp:synthesis. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are replying to. If I were arguing the RfC I would say that the Cat:Jewish people or whatever should not be included in Cat:People of ME descent. Since we are discussing the quality of the close my position is that the close was bad because, by the criteria stated in the close, both sets of arguements were poor and giving deciding weight to a wall of non-specific and off point sources was incorrect. There was not enough there to judge a clear consensus either way and a Keep close effectivly locks in a universial categorization which seems to be, as I have argued, incorrect on its face. JbhTalk 18:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
@Masem As others also said above, the category is a "descent" category, but who they are descendant from is determined by religious rules more than by bloodline, and that is what the disputed category is about. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
If it is unclear to seasoned editors what criteria determine the inclusion of the one Category in the other Category then how are readers going to be able to make any sense of such a Categorization? Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
{{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
...but politically speaking, "shit be gettin' crazy". If you aren't already, you should consider automatically semi-protecting basically any politician that get mentioned from here on. HalfShadow 02:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
For those of you not in the U.S.: we appear to be heading into a serious political/constitutional crisis. Heads are rolling. Not literally...yet...Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
All I'm saying is you guys're gonna have your work cut out for you. HalfShadow 03:35, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Presumably you're talking just the current politicians; I don't foresee significant disruption to the article about U.S. Representative Abiel Foster, for example. Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
No, I don't think you've understood what HalfShadow is saying at all. One does not have to be an ultra-liberal Democrat to have noticed that the advent of the Trump administration has emboldened some far-right wing editors to attempt to skew articles to their POV. I am not a Trump supporter, but I'm not saying that the new administration necessarily supports these people, simply that those editors see an opportunity to get their political viewpoint into articles during an administration which, it can hardly be denied, is fundamentally antithetical to liberal politics. I believe that HalfShadow is pointing out that during an administration which has been so outfront about its views, we need to remain vigilant about making sure that our articles are balanced and do not present one POV in favor of another. The same would be true if we were ever to elect an ultra-liberal administration, although (despite the propaganda from Fox News and others) we never have. Politics in modern America spans the range from moderately liberal to very conservative, with a bit of lunatic fringe on both ends, but more so on the conservative side. Add to that a President with the tendency to say whatever's on his mind at the moment, with no real filtering, and to shoot from the hip, and we;ve got what the old Chinese proverb called "interesting times". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Who are you addressing? Paul August☎ 21:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
This seems like this person was trying to help, but went dived into a political statement halfway through and never got out.—JJBers 06:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
People use those, what? I would have dismissed them simply for being unstable. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
It's also Google Translate links. Those have the same blacklist evasion properties, but are stabler and are used much more on articles. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Point of order: The AfD was for an article in the mainspace, and you are requesting a deletion of an editor's user space. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 22:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah there's no problem with this. Sam Walton (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
So it's OK to have copies of articles that were deleted at AfD in your User space indefinitely? JMHamo (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think an article that was deleted yesterday is quite the same as what 'indefinitely' suggests here. That said, as the editor stated in the AFD to go ahead and delete the article, I don't know if they'll mind. Either way, I've left them a notification of this thread [94]. PGWG (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@PGWG: My point being that it will remain in the User space and eventually become a Stale Draft, which will most probably stick around for years but yet it will never get moved to the Main space because it was deleted at AFD, so I am struggling to see why it shouldn't be deleted too. What value does keeping a copy serve the project? JMHamo (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@JMHamo: Or the editor might use that content to create a different article (or attempt to add to that draft in order to bring it to a point where it could exist in the mainspace). Why the rush to get rid of it so quickly? PGWG (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Because I don't want to see it in 2022 stale and untouched, serving no useful purpose when it can be deleted now. Wikipedia is not a repository for junk. JMHamo (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no policy justification for pre-emptively deleting this draft. If it hangs around for months untouched I'm sure it will be flagged for removal at that time; in the interim we should leave it alone so the editor can work on it if they wish. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Unless Jmpetroske was the sole contributor to the article, the article needs to be history merged into the draft, or the draft needs to be deleted as a copyright violation. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Not a copyvio. When the draft was created, Jmpetroske was one of two editors who had edited the article, and the only edit by anyone else (JMHamo, as you can guess from the AFD's history) was adding an AFD template, so for attribution purposes, Jmpetroske indeed was the only editor. The only other person who ever edited the article was Riceissa, and he did non-content contributions such as formatting the reflist, adding brackets to make a link, and adding categories and See alsos. Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
RfC on secondary school notability is ready for closing[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The RfC on secondary school notability at VPP is ready to be closed by one or maybe a team of uninvolved admins. There has been a lot of back and forth discussion on this very controversial topic and this one is going to need careful reading and evaluation of the arguments by whoever closes it. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bot removing headings / comments from infoboxes; Bot creator ignoring requests to fix the problem[edit]
The administrator intervention for this has been resolved and the task is now disabled. Follow up as to that task to be continued at WP:BON — xaosfluxTalk 05:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:JJMC89 bot is running through articles that use infobox settlement coordinates parameters and switching to coord. I'm fine with the purpose of the bot, but a significant percentage of the edits made by the bot have been removing heading lines / comments in the infoboxes, such as in this edit. With several dozen to more than 100 parameters used in any given article, these headings in infobox settlement serve a rather useful function and are being removed simply because of a known bug that User:JJMC89 acknowledges, but refuses to address. Repeated requests to fix the problem or shut down the bot left at the user's talk page have been brushed off or simply ignored. WP:Bots suggests WP:AN as the forum for dealing with bots that are not following the "harmless" standard specified by WP:Bot policy.Any help in resolving this matter will be appreciated, both to stop / fix JJMC89 bot and to have User:JJMC89 fix the articles he has damaged. Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I have blocked the bot. This is not to be interpreted as taking sides in this discussion, but there seem to be valid objections and therefore the bot should stop until a consnesus is reached, and the bot operator should probably be a little less dismissive of these concerns. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The bot is not malfunctioning, contrary to the reason given in the block log. The manner of parameter removal has not changed since the task's approval. Since HTML comments do not effect the rendering of the page, the edits are harmless. Also, blocking the bot was unnecessary since there is way to disable the individual task on the bot's user page. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@JJMC89: for background, can you verify if this is Task 7? — xaosfluxTalk 04:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Yes, it is task 7, and anything that is not whitespace will disable the task. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Again, I have no objection to the bot, but unless the removal of headings / comments is intentional, the bot is malfunctioning. The premise that knowingly removing material from articles is acceptable simply because it doesn't change how the page renders is a blatant misrepresentation of policy. The bug can be fixed and should be fixed and the bot should not be re-enabled until the problem is addressed. Alansohn (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: Are you OK with the block being lifted on condition that Task 7 (see above) is suspended until this issue is resolved? — xaosfluxTalk 04:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Alansohn: Beeblebrox may be offline, are you ok with this? — xaosfluxTalk 04:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
If I read correctly, that makes sense, but I acknowledge my ignorance of the minutia of bots. Alansohn (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, Unblocking, but this task (that deals with the coordinates in infoboxes is disabled - needs more disuscsion) - will venue change this to BON for follow up. — xaosfluxTalk 05:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Multiple new users being created with similar user names (COMM)[edit]
I have to go offline here in a few minutes so I don't have time to investigate, but I was browsing the user creation log and I've noticed numerous new users being created that start with "COMM" seemingly all at once. Now maybe it's nothing, but it just doesn't seem right. Can someone take a look and keep any eye on their activity (if any)? Thanks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm guessing possibly a class (COMM 112) did this perhaps? RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't have high hopes for the group. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah it's definitely a class. Is there one of the editors that works with Wiki Ed that could chime in here and figure out what's going on? Wondering if a teacher is doing this as an example for a lesson or something? RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone, greetings from Fargo, North Dakota. We are a Communications 112 class at NDSU! — Preceding unsigned comment added by COMM112RachelM (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the info COMM112RachelM. Could you ask you and all your colleagues to shift to your best encyclopaedic behaviour? Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi COM112RachelM it looks like your class is using editing Wikipedia as an assignment? That's great, we really encourage educators to use Wikipedia in the classroom. In the beginning, it is best to get some guidance from professionals in order to avoid editing faux pas. Since it looks like you are a university course based in the US, may I suggest that the professor in charge of this course get in touch with Wiki Edu who can assist? We also have resources at the Wikipedia Education Program portal. --NSaad (WMF) (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
An additional minor complication: At least one person who's obviously in the class is editing without being logged in: Special:Contributions/134.129.60.176. ¶ Most of the edits that I've looked at (not only by this IP but by UIDs that imply class membership) seem well intentioned, but balefully uninformed about what's needed for good edits. This would be understandable if these were people editing for the first time without any guidance, but instead they're in a course. I wonder what their instructions were. -- Hoary (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jauerback, Hoary, NSaad (WMF), Zzuuzz, COMM112RachelM, and RickinBaltimore: As this is a class in the US, I'd love to get them on board with Wiki Ed. It's not a class we're aware of, so please keep me posted if you identify the instructor, and we'll reach out to tell them about the interactive training, staff support, instructional materials, etc. available (including username best practices :) ). (And to RachelM and others in the class, it would be great to get your instructor's email (or to have them email us at contact@wikiedu.org)). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I would suspect that the vanilla-named User talk:COMM112 might be the instructor., as all the other accounts appear to be COMM112xxxx. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
This was also discussed on AN/I, in a thread which is now archived here. In it, you'll find a fuller list of COMM112xxxx names. All users on that list were pointed to both the AN/I thread and this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi - An editor by the name of Brendan Patterson has on three occasions made edits to the Grainger plc article which describe an acrimonious dispute that Mr And Mrs Patterson are having with Grainger plc over a tree. If the editor is the same Mr Patterson who is in dispute with Grainger plc then he has a conflict of interest and should not be editing the article (see WP:COI). Also Wikipedia should not be used to promote private interests such as this (see WP:SOAPBOX). He has cited a website which seems to have been set up solely to promote his claim and which is therefore not reliable (see WP:RS). I have attempted to engage with the editor on his talk page and also on the article talk page but without success. Views welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I just reverted the edit again and left a warning explaining that the link is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Should they repost the link, I'd feel a block would be in order. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
All his edits have been within the 1100-1200 hour UTC, so he can't yet respond; let's see what happens twelve hours from now. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
And his response was to again post the same link about the litigation. I've reverted the edit and blocked for WP:NOTHERE as all of their edits are regarding this suit and site. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Article titles and capitalization[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
In remedy 4.2 of the 2012 Article titles and capitalisation case, standard discretionary sanctions were authorized for all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed. By way of clarification, the scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 03:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Satt 2 indefinitely blocked per consensus. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Satt 2 was unblocked not long ago per a request on this page on the strict condition that he would be topic banned from anything related to Georgia, and would not make any controversial edits for a lengthy period. Yet, ever since, he's playing the game which we could evidently describe as sneakily in order to avoid scrutiny, by still editing matters directly related to Georgia, but not as directly as let's say, editing a "History of Georgia (country) article". Violating examples; [95]-[96] (<---changed Europe map to add Georgia to it, which is completely in line with typical Satt 2 behavior for the last 6 yrs)-[97] Also, I'd say this one is an outright violation of the terms of unblock, in the strictest sense of the words. As you can see, he completely overhauled this page to once again add Georgia almost completely geographically in Europe, a status quo completely different from what is actually presented on the main map on the Europe page, see here. (he just uploaded a new map with Georgia in Europe today, and added that on these linked pages).
This users editorial obsession with this whole "Georgia-Europe" thing was one of the foremost reasons (apart from a dozen other) why he got blocked and continued to get caught and blocked when he created new sockpuppets over the past six years. Feel free to check his SPI where an abundant amount of similar examples are visible. This should be really considered unacceptable, taking into account the user's repertoire and the way he got unblocked. In my opinion, this only shows once again that the user in question should not be editing Wikipedia. He's basically ridiculing the guys who supported an unblock, just saying. - LouisAragon (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment It is a remarkable display of BADFAITH to suggest that I am not editing Georgia-specific articles because I am being "sneaky" - I am not editing them because I am banned from them, a restriction that I have always intended to abide by. That being said, I have to be reasonable in my edits. Should I not edit Black Sea because Georgia lies on its coast? Should I not touch Caucasus Mountains because it runs through Georgia? Am I expected to edit articles like Thermal-neutron reactor or Thorium fuel cycle out of fear that anything less esoteric would be construed as being related to Georgia?...
If one was to follow LouisAragon's flawed logic, I should not touch any Europe or Asia articles because Georgia is part of both. With that same logic, I should not edit United Nations articles because Georgia is a member and features there in one form or another. What LouisAragon presents here is a very broad interpretation of a country-specific ban. Also, I have never been topic banned from creating files on Wikimedia Commons, or any other wiki project, so what exactly is the relevance of that here? LouisAragon appears to be going out on a limb to get me re-blocked on technicalities, and I think that has less to do with the terms of my topic ban, which are pretty clear, and more to do with LouisAragon's personal animosity towards me. --Satt 2 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I find it difficult to reconcile the above claims with the three specific examples of violations listed at the top of this section. I'm just saying.--Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Support re-blocking indefinitely with the standard offer, as these edits are clearly gaming the topic ban which was a condition of having been unblocked in the first place (and recently). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipedia is a place of freedom and there should not be such personal confrontations that you have with Satt2 (or with other users you would like to see blocked), also you always misrepresent whole subject, map in the article Europe says Clickable map of Europe, showing one of the most commonly used continental boundariesone of the means that what Satt2 upload is another boundary of Europe and not his own imagination (to put Georgia in Europe). Here you can see how many variants there are File:Possible definitions of the boundary between Europe and Asia.png. In the end, agree with Satt2's contra argument I suppose country topic-ban doesn't mean that an editor have to edit only articles about Mars or Moon.--g. balaxaZe★ 23:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Support and further. Satt 2 was WP:NOTHERE then, and remains WP:NOTHERE now. Not only are they gaming the system here, but their global contributions clearly show that despite their protestations to the contrary they're still dedicated to their POV-mission. Block, and then next time they request to unblock, don't do it unless they make a full and honest unblock request address covering their copious and repeated behavioural problems, rather than the terribly incomplete one they were unblocked for which discussed only the socking and copyright violations. CMD (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Just recently, you were locked in a dispute with another editor regarding your obsessive removal of any content referencing Georgia's continental placement, and that was before any of my edits became an issue. It sounds to me that you and LouisAragon are the ones preoccupied with pushing POV related to this specific topic, which makes me think that the goal of this AN is merely to thin out your ideological opposition based on technicalities.
Dennis Brown is not an admin at this time (more's the pity). Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't know whether these people are all admins or not, the point is that the group he pinged was selective. If I had done that, I'm sure they would be quick to cite some wikipedia policies to showcase what a terrible editor I am.--Satt 2 (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
...and you asked him on his talk page how he decided who to ping before posting accusations, right? RIGHT? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Support Given the unblock condition was, and I quote, Satt2 is unbanned with a topic ban from all thing Georgia (Country) for 12 months. Satt2 is counselled that further controversial editing is most likely going to be final, this is a blatant violation and obviously controversial. Blackmane (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Support This gaming the system needs to stop. Also Satt2 needs to stop refactoring their comments here. This is only one of several times that they have done this in this thread. MarnetteD|Talk 04:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Support -- No way. 1000% trying to circumvent scrutiny. The given analogies given in "defense", completely erroneous and taken out of context, are quite the cherry on top of the cake, I will add. -- Mazandar (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I just love how users with cozy relationships with LouisAragon suddenly all showed up to render their 1000% support. But not to worry, I'm sure they just stumbled upon this section by chance.--Satt 2 (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I do not know LouisAragon. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Support I have no contact really with any of the editors here. However, seeing the above edit, I fully support an indef block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Support I have no idea who LouisAragon is and I did just stumble on this section and it's crystal clear that there is gaming of a simple and easy restriction that had zero margin for error. The arguments about editing in broad areas like Europe or the U.N are facetious: If Satt 2 wants to edit on Europe then edit, say, something about Slovenia. If they had made an honest mistake, there would have been an "Oops, I'm sorry" and life would have continued on. That's not what's happening here. This is not a borderline judgment call. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 16:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Support - I don't know either editor from Adam, but Satt 2 appears to be very deliberately gaming the system. Seeing as how a very clear tban couldn't be followed, and given the attitude demonstrated here, I think an indef is (more than) called for. PGWG (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
To my amazement, thanks to Chipmunkdavis,[98] we can see that he has been continuing with the exact same thing on so many other Wiki's as well. I might add that cross-Wiki POV editing, and pretty much only specifically regarding these matters, is a behaviour typical of Satt 2 and his socks, so its quite trademark-ish (please refer to the SPI). Is there any way to put a stop to this? A cross-wiki block? A revert on all these pages would be preferential, ostensibly per WP:NOTHERE and WP:DENY amongst others. This charade, that started six years ago and is still continuing, must end now. @Guy Macon:, @Beyond My Ken:, @PGWG:, @Eggishorn:, @RickinBaltimore:, @Mazandar:, @MarnetteD:, @Blackmane:, @Euryalus:, @Boing! said Zebedee:, @Miniapolis: (inb4 selective pinging lel). - LouisAragon (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
ENWP has no jurisdication over what happens on other wikis. If Satt 2 is exhibiting problematic editing there then that the editors in the respective wikis will need to raise the issue in their ANI or Arbcom equivalents. Only sustained disruption across multiple wikis could a global lock be levied. Blackmane (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Paid professional also with personal bias against proven science dominating editing { List of unproven and disproven cancer treatments }[edit]
No evidence provided, so no action required. Johnny ko, please don't make allegations unless you can back them up with proof. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Wikipedia contributor is a professional digital optimiser, with failure to declare conflict of interest, therefore possibly being paid to control a page of bias against cancer treatments and other proven medical therapies. This is contradictory to good practice and he should face ban from contribution.
The user is Alexbrn.
His profile states he works professionally as a digital publist, hired to optimise results for a specific client.
He dominates pages, and is listed as a wikidragon “making bold massive edits everywhere”
And even has a personal blog linked to his wiki account claiming nutritional therapy, physiotherapy and accupunture as “magic”.
Clearly this is not conducive for Wikipedia to maintain a good reputation as a leading collaborative information source, and steps should be taken to protect against this users actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny ko (talk • contribs) 02:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is biased towards content that is verifiable by reliable sources. On articles about medical topics, sourcing requirements are even more strict than normal. I assume you're the person who wanted a screed about the healing power of wishful thinking, sourced to a youtube video? Yeah, if you don't like how actual cancer experts report on those kinds of things, this is the wrong website to complain about it. Also, Alexbrn (talk·contribs) works for a publicist something in a realm of publishing, true, but so what? He's not being paid to edit Wikipedia. What, you want us to ban an entire profession because they might edit Wikipedia on behalf of a client? May as well just ban everyone, since anyone can take a job and not tell us about it. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I wonder whose sock this account is. I don't actually work for a publicist - my paid work is writing computer software and reports on software-related publishing production stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
someguy1221: "Assumptions" made of a personal nature within the same paragraph you state necessity of strict sourcing controls is immediately indicative of a contradictory modus operandi and evident of your own personal bias, that immediately negates your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny ko (talk • contribs) 03:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
A brand new editor, who's first ever edit is to AN? I'd suggest you divulge who you are a sock of. RickinBaltimore (talk) 03:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Long time listener, first time caller thanks Rick. Over to you ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny ko (talk • contribs) 03:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
OK Johnny, let's take you at your word for a moment. Can you answer me a few questions? Do you have any evidence of any kind that Alex edits Wikipedia articles on behalf of a client? You presented none. Are you aware that holding personal opinions about a subject does not prevent an editor from editing articles on that subject? Are you familiar with WP:MEDRS, the guideline that governs sourcing in medical articles? Are you aware that the neutral point of view is whichever point of view is predominantly held by reliable sources, and not any sort of balance between opposing sides of an argument? (See also: false balance, argument to moderation.) Basically, you have presented this board with no actionable complaints, and no evidence of a problem. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Alex presents as a source of concern for the reliability of information provided on WP, exerting significant influence and control over particular pages which is evident through the history pages, inclusive of a recent deletion of a post that referenced the World Health Organisation, or discounting evidence from clinical trials from UK hospitals. It seems he goes to significant efforts to dispute highly reputable sources, which raises concerns of motivation. To go to such efforts to discount reputable sources, its reasonable to suggest investigation may be warranted, to provide evidence as requested by yourself someguy. Note the word "possibly" used in the issue raised with administrators, in regards to potential personal gains, and the aggravating circumstances surrounding the concerns, such as terming medical treatment, that are predominately accepted as safe and effective treatments by the greater medical community, as magic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny ko (talk • contribs) 06:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I see a lot of allegations but precious little evidence. If you intend on your accusations to be taken with any seriousness you're going to have to provide solid proof in the form of diffs not to mention a desired course of action. Editors do not come to ANI and say "this editor here is doing something bad, go look into it." The burden of proof is on you. Blackmane (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for indicating the required due course of action Blackmane. I'll compile the diffs at your request, though I believe a desired course of action has already been noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny ko (talk • contribs) 06:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi! I'm a new user. I'm creating a page for Elementary Season 1. Can anyone let me know how I'm doing? Maybe help me a out a little? Thanks!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was not sure which page to go to report this. I created a new template at Template:Kriegsmarine; however, the template starts having errors at the fourth group of the navbox. I have tried everything and cannot get it to format correctly. Can someone knowledgeable of templates take a look? -O.R.Comms 16:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed it for you, I think. Gricehead (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks great. Thank you! -O.R.Comms 18:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
We've had, today, numerous errors sitting on the main page for more than 15 hours. Please make sure some of you actually get involved with the project, i.e. ensuring the Main Page that 20+ million people visit every day is error-free. If any of you need help in how to update or fix any of the sections of the main page, caches, hidden pages, project pages etc, don't hesitate to ask me. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: You do a great job picking up on main page errors, and thank you for your efforts. But I think you might find that other editors will be more willing to lend a hand if you're not shouting at them in all caps (this genuinely makes me less likely to help), and actually spent some time fixing the errors you're reporting. You post a lot of errors that could be fixed by any editor in hardly more time than it takes to report them. Sam Walton (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, if admins aren't going to address these issues on personal grounds, they should be desysopped. I can't fix many errors myself, I have limited time. But the reluctance to do the job is noted. If we have to wait 15 hours to remove an Otd which didn't happens today and which was reported hours before today, the system is broken. Please do a better job here admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I can't fix most of the errors I report. They're already in protected templates, as I'm sure you know. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Can we remember, please, that the Main Page is the tail, and the encyclopedia is the dog, and not vice versa? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Can we remember, please, that the main page has more than 20 millions hits per day, errors on there should be avoided at all costs. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Can we remember, please, that eliminating the Main Page and replacing it with a simple portal would still get 20 million hits a day? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The Rambling Man seems very keen to work on this issue. Could he, should he, would he want to be, granted powers to edit the main page? Without going through anything so tedious as RfA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Keatinge (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, you aren't seeing Wikipedia from the perspective of a reader. But never mind. Richard Keatinge, that ship sailed, the various elements battling against me preferred to keep the current omnishambles. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
My comments about the value of the Main Page are, in some fashion, preventing others from commenting on TRM's request that admins "get involved with the project" by fixing errors on the Main Page that he is unable to do himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Actually, TRM, I always attempt to edit Wikipedia from the perspective of a reader. What I try not to do is to see it from the perspective of an insider who's more concerned with following "rules" (i.e. guidelines, i.e. MOS) then they are with providing the reader with the best possible encyclopedia full of accurate and well-written, well-laid out articles. I will acknowledge that it is my opinion, and that it is probably not shared by many others here, but I find the Main Page to be almost completely useless, and I believe that holds for the majority of readers as well. In my personal and professional life, I see people using Wikipedia constantly, and what they do is go to the page they need for the information they're looking for, either directly or through a Google search, they don't go to the Main Page and browse their way into the encyclopedia. (And I say this as a person who used to read the encyclopedia and the dictionary as a kid, a thing very few other people did.) At the very most, people have the Main Page bookmarked and use it for a starting point to put in the search term for what they're looking for. "In the News" ("The Botswana legislature banned moonwalking last week over the objections of the country's President"}, "Did You Know" ("Did you know that Lorna Doone was a real person and thought up the recipe for her cookie while riding a haywagon in Shropshire, England?"), "On this Date" ("...the Diet of Regensburg (1541) had a secret meeting with Johann Gropper, canon of Cologne, and Gerhard Veltwick, the Imperial secretary, on the one side and Martin Butzer and Wolfgang Fabricius Capito, the delegates of Protestant Strasbourg, on the other?"), "Featured Article" (Fez (video game)), etc. it's all pretty much useless material for the vast majority of people -- in my opinion, of course; it would take some market research to determine if I am correct. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, in case it wasn't clear, only half of the "facts" above are true, I invented the other half, and none of the true facts have ever actually appeared on the Main Page, as far as I know. I felt they were all representative of the kind of information that appears in the various departments of the Main Page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, TRM, despite our past disputes, I don't say any of this in an attempt to insult you, or to denigrate your work on the Main Page, which I'm certain is valuable to the page. I've held this opinion about the Main Page for a long, long time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I'll keep reverting vandalism by people like 176.10.106.30, but am powerless to do anything about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, I wasn't looking for input from non-admins here, I need more actual admins to patrol that page so reports aren't left hanging for dozens of hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The Law of Unintended Consequences, I guess: you post one of your periodic complaints that admins aren't paying enough attention to your pet project, and regular old people comment on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Integrity of the main page and the drive to reduce such overt errors is hardly a "pet project". Now then, please allow others to comment here, you're not actively helping anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't realize that my comments were in some way preventing other from commenting. Tell you what, I'll hat them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Now you've finished, let's hope we can get some admins to comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, if there's a backlog that needs looking at, they're too busy sat on their elbows to do anything. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 18:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Well yes. There's no real such thing as a backlog because it needs "urgent" attention. Usually most errors (apart from ITN) are stale and pointless after 24 hours. But right now I'm seeing errors sitting there for 15+ hours. I don't know why admins aren't addressing these issues. Perhaps they're too busy polishing their mops. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion at WP:ANI#Help please: Dealing with filibustering at WP:COMICS has become unwieldy and has several proposals. The conversation has died down to the same few editors with pretty fixed positions and input is sorely needed from some uninvolved editors and, ultimately, someone to close the various proposals. Thank you. Jbh Talk 15:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I second this. I don't think it's unfair to say that closure is overdue at that discussion. DarkKnight2149 16:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-constructive attempt to influence administrators and carry the dispute here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkknight2149 (talk • contribs)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So far, Darkknight2149 has shown persistent issues throughout the discussion including WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLEGROUND, elements of WP:CIR, repeated, unsubstantiated allegations of an "inner circle" and meatpuppetry and continued, highly disruptive filibustering of any attempt at discussion - the very same behaviour that got them dragged to ANI twice now. Any closure of this discussion would need to include some kind of sanction for DK on this issue, given that nobody but them has opposed their sanctions. There are two choices that I have put forward, either the topic ban, or the (IMHO, more than earned) 2 week block which have gained widespread support. Also: Doesn't this qualify as WP:FORUMSHOPPING? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Please do not spread the ANI thread here. The whole point of this request is to get other editors' opinions. Jbh Talk 02:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to third the request for a close. I'll put it this way; the sooner that thread is closed, the less back and forth the admins will have to read through. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Someone please, please, please put the ANI thread out of its misery. Jbh Talk 23:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Seriously, it's getting to the point of stupidity. Someone put a stop to this cancerous disruption! Twitbookspacetube 23:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Guys, settle down. You made the request, and it will be followed-up by someone eventually. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have posted a "username???" template on the talk page of User:WikipediaPatrolScript.php. I find this questionable, and in violation of the spirit if not the letter of the policy--it probably appears to the uninitiated to be some sort of official account. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I've indeffed this account and its sock, and there is a further CU evidence that both are socks of an LTA-er. Materialscientist (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Today I blocked User:Toddmeagher for blatant legal threats (e.g. [99]) relating to the article You Made Me. Ronhjones has been involved with this issue as well. There are a couple of IP sockpuppets too: 47.185.22.124(talk·contribs·WHOIS) and 172.110.128.46(talk·contribs·WHOIS). Any advice or suggestions would be welcome, because I have no idea how to handle legal issues like this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I told him User talk:Toddmeagher if he has a legal issue to contact the legal team. He chose to ignore that for a while until I stopped him and his socks from editing the page. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably related to this. Suffice to say that user should not be editing that article regardless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Please comment at Wp:Bots/Requests for approval/Merge bot 2 - on the specific question of whether or not the bot should WP:REVISIONDELETE the edit summaries used by Cydebot while creating new category pages (as part of category rename process) between 2005-2015. (These edit summaries carried a list of editors for attribution.) 103.6.159.65 (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
(non-admin closure) "Apology", if real, is a violation of the block. If not real, it's a waste of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello Wikipedians it's me I know you angry with me for being a sockpuppet so you hate me so well. I admitted I was a stubborn, selfish jerk you ever dealt with, guess I got carried away and I was really in bad mood, I'm sorry. The point is being a sockpuppet was very depressive, miserable and filled with loneliness. For the past few months I was very deeply remorse for my abusive action and I went over the edge. Technically you don't understand who your dealing, I'm proud Egyptian with great national pride how dare you condemn me as sockpuppet, not a terrorist, I mean't no harm. Before this I was being a silent anonymous editor for few years until Yamla spilled the bean for no reason whatsoever. Tell you the truth my editing skills was very poor at that time I made most collateral damage very worse OK I was the most disruptive irrelevant editor most of times and I'll pay my damages some later, guess I was potential. It's seem you don't want me here in Wikipedia it's like "you won't have Mo to kick around anymore" seems to be I was a failed editor.
In conclusion I wanna regret you all now changed and reformed that's all. I'll restarted my editing in a good way and now it's time to unblock my user account Moatassemakmal which is blocked by Connormah for 2 years and I'll redeem myself as a peaceful editor as calm and dignity. From my bottom my heart I ask you my forgiveness, Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.133.52.94 (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Editing logged out is a violation of your block/ban (and we have no way of knowing if this really is User:Moatassemakmal talking to us, so we could not possibly act on it anyway). If you wish to make an appeal, you need to do so logged in to your account. As the ability to edit User talk:Moatassemakmal is revoked, you should contact WP:UTRS and request that it be restored for the purpose of making an appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Moatassemakmal, just to be clear, you are not permitted to edit at all until your main account, Moatassemakmal (talk·contribs), has been unblocked. Boing! tells you how you can accomplish this. Given your long history of block avoidance, you may find it difficult to be unblocked. --Yamla (talk) 17:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved Protected for 6 Months - Move requests after that period should demonstrate clear evidence that consensus and primarytopic data has changed significantly since the last three RMs. Incessant RMs in the face of consensus is disruptive. A notice has been placed on the talk page --Mike Cline (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the last year, there have been three WP:RM discussions relating to the page Trump and the article Donald Trump:
March 2016, closed by admin Mike Cline. Proposed that the card game should be get a dab, and the dab page be moved to the bare title. Result: not moved
There has just been a fourth botched attempt, with a botched attempt at closure by inexperienced new editor Chris H of New York (60 edits so far in 4 months). Details here[100].
This may turn into a perennial proposal. Or maybe not. Consensus can change, as it did between March 2016 and November 2016. So there needs to be a chance to revisit the issue at some point.
However, it would also be disruptive for the same proposal to be wheeled out every few weeks. In some previous instances of contentious article names, there has been a moratorium on further proposals, of up to a year. I suggest that it would be appropriate to have one here, initially for between 3 and 6 months. Any thoughts? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I suppose that could work, but there are more disruptive pages that could use one, namely Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia, which, including the current one, has had about five RMs in 2 months, and that excludes one started by a sock and another that was speedy closed as disruptive. By comparison, there has been three RMs in 10 months at Talk:Trump. So we could probably issue a moratorium for both pages, but clearly one is more disruptive than the other. Sorry I had to bring this up, but I kinda had to since its (somewhat) related. SkyWarrior 11:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Few things piss me off more on Wikipedia than those who keep demanding until they get the answer they want. It's antithetical to collaborative working. I support a moratorium for 12 months or until after the impeachment proceedings, whichever is the sooner. Guy (Help!) 11:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Support moratorium as I fear the loss of the noisy fart on the page. -Roxy the dog.bark 12:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with the moratorium 100%. Bigly you could even say. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that the suggestion above of a 12 month moratorium is too long for Trump. The most recent discussion made some use of pageview stats (which had been absent from the November discussion), but those were contested on the grounds that they related to his inauguration day, when there was a huge spike in page views (see this chart). It seems to me to be reasonable that editors should have a chance to reassess the metrics a few months into his term of office. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Support a 4-year moratorium, combined with any requested move needs to be addressed directly to admins on this page. I say 4 years, because the subject matter is a lightening rod that draws very strong opinions on any aspect. — Maile (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@Maile66, have you read the RM discussions linked above? There was some partisan commentary, but most editors conducted themselves quite responsibly. I think that we need to find a balance between the disruptiveness of having a move discussion very few weeks, and the shutdown of an over-long moratorium. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Support a 12-month moratorium. I pray for impeachment, but (given the present Congress) am not optimistic. Miniapolis 23:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
A one year moratorium sounds like a reasonable idea, but if consensus is for something of a different specific length, count my !vote as support for that as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
12 months is a good starting point. We can either extend it if necessary when the time comes, or terminate it early in the (unlikely) event that things calm down before then. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
6-month moratorium at least . I believe this should be the general rule for re-opening a discussion which had a consensus, except where some major change has occured sice the closure. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 22:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
6-month moratorium, between the two discussions, per @BrownHairedGirl: there was a slight change in consensus, but arguably still no clear consensus, it seems reasonable to re-assess it after he has had a fair amount of time in office. I pretty much dislike all the partisan commentary on this AN thread, you can love or hate the man, but there is no need to discuss impeachment etc here. - CHAMPION(talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure you meant insane issue. Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
At least a year break because its unconstructive and not helpful to building an encyclopedia... It's mostly people with political agendas getting annoyed. A DAB is the safest and most neutral route for the time being. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
12 months. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old[edit]
For some time, I've been working on keeping Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old depopulated but will be unable to until approximately 1 March. On one hand, it is not a critical backlog in terms of timing, no one is likely to notice if it piles up a bit, but there's a new bot adding to it, so it may get to be large. I believe there's a bot in planning to do the depopulation, but I do not know the status.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice; I've been dabbling in it, and will work a bit harder as circumstances dictate. All the best, Miniapolis 23:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey, if any of you don't mind could you check to see if the article O'Leary for Canada has previously been deleted? There's some numbers in brackets in the main body that look suspiciously like they were copy pasted from somewhere and poorly formatted. Thanks, Pishcal (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
No deleted revisions. The content is copied from O'Leary's own article; see Kevin O'Leary#Politics. For future reference, you can find whether a page has been deleted: go to the page history, and just below "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", you'll see a link to the page's logs. Any deletions will have been logged, and while of course this won't tell you if it's been deleted under a different name, we admins don't have a way to find that out either. Basically all you can't do is discovering whether there are any deleted revisions at the title in question and reading the contents of those revisions. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, can't believe that slipped my mind. For some reason I got it in my head that only admins could see page history rather than only them being able to see the actual deleted pages. Maybe it's time to get some sleep. Thanks, Pishcal (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I've just been asked by George Ho to change Template:Infobox to template protection - it seems I full-protected it in December 2006(!). I can't seem to find the discussions but I believe there was a small flurry of them done around this time and seen as a reasonable special case to deal with the risk of very visible vandalism; template protection, of course, didn't exist back then.
Dropping it down to template protection seems in line with WP:PP, but thought I'd flag it here in case a) it should have remained on full (in which case, please feel free to revert) or b) anyone is keen to dig out old full-protected templates and drop them down to template-protected. I have a draft query to identify these here, currently waiting to run. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
As far as (a), I agree with the reduction; this is why we have template protection. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It still looks protected to me (as a template editor), downgrading local protection didn't have any effect because it was cascade protected. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It was on Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items, so I've removed it from that page. Going to edit the template, I was told that it was still under full cascading protection, but now I'm told that it's only under TE protection, so this situation should be resolved. Come back here if it's not. Nyttend (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Mr. Stradivarius about Module:Infobox, fully protected but not cascaded. The protection of the module should be lowered to "template protection" also. George Ho (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Why? Is there any evidence that reducing protection would help the encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not the place for people to exercise their human rights to edit any damn thing right here and right now. In principle, the template editor right should be sufficient to get a good result, but there have been lots of cases where TE editors have made multiple minor changes to a template or module without any testing in a sandbox and with no effort to get all required changes implemented in a single edit. Fiddling with infoboxes affects millions of pages and is not the place to try bold editing on the assumption that someone else will clean up if a problem is found. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
...If you want, Johnuniq, you can re-cascade the template and reinstate the "full protection". If that happens, feel free to strike my request on the module. George Ho (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I've downgraded Module:Infobox to template protection. The template editor user right is only supposed to be given out to users who we can trust to edit templates and modules sensibly - if there are editors out there that are abusing the right, then we should remove their template editor rights, rather than upgrade pages to full protection again. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪ 04:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You are too nice Mr. S! I predict doom and gloom. Johnuniq (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with this change for these specific templates, in use on over 2million pages. There is almost no backlog for FPROT edit requests and these frameworks are not subject to frequent updates. — xaosfluxTalk 04:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Xaosflux, are you disagreeing on "this goes against the policy" grounds or disagreeing on "I don't think this is a good idea" grounds? Either way, I disagree with your disagreement (this could get really repetitive if you disagree with my disagreement with your disagreement, and then I disagree with that, etc.), but I'd like to understand your position better before I respond to it. Nyttend (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Nyttend: I don't really have any good policy arguments on this, but breaking changes to such a template would have have a significant impact on readers and full protection helps remind even admins that maybe they should really really really discuss such changes before implementing. — xaosfluxTalk 05:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it's a decent question. Is it worth making it slightly easier for a 150 people to change templates that often go entire years without any edits, at the risk that one mistake breaks half of Wikipedia until the job queue clears out? I mean, that's not too bad, and we'll probably go back to full protection on a lot of templates the first time it happens... Someguy1221 (talk) 05:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
[ec with Someguy] So it sounds to me like you're saying "I don't think this is a good idea". As far as reminders go, what's the difference between full and template protection? Both get a box saying
WARNING: This page has been protected so that only users with [details about rights] can make edits.
Either way, the box then transcludes the rights log, and there's a red background for the page's coding. Full protection being a good deal more common, you're much more likely to assume that a template-protected page is fully protected than vice versa (and if we're talking reminders, first impressions are the important thing, even if they're somewhat wrong, as in my example), and if you're ignoring the first impression and thinking about the situation, you'll remember that both full and template protection require a lot of care. Reading your words, the only possibility I see for an alternate problem situation is the risk of a breaking change via vandalism by a template editor, and (1) if you're trying to hack an advanced-permissions account to vandalise with it, you're foolish to go for a template editor's account, since they're a good deal rarer, have far fewer rights, and can lose that right via action by a single admin (as opposed to requiring an Arbcom case for an admin), but the password hack shouldn't be any easier on technical grounds; and (2) since the policy [which you're not addressing] permits this kind of move, I don't think we should disagree with the RFC's decision that there's not a significant and dangerous risk of having a breaking change caused by vandalism from a TE. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
As far as account security goes, currently WP:2FA is not available by default for template editors (though they can request it on meta:). — xaosfluxTalk 12:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something here, George Ho and Andrew Gray is there any special reason for this change, George Ho is not a template editor, has any template editor been blocked from improving the encyclopedia? I'm normally in favor of removing old protections, etc to reduce hurdles for improvement but I'm not seeing that here. — xaosfluxTalk 12:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
At least one former template editor has had multiple blocks for personal attacks and block evasion but not for abusing the template editor right. --NeilNtalk to me 14:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry NeilN I used "blocked" above as in "prevented" not as in a user block. — xaosfluxTalk 19:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
No particular reason on my part - George asked and it seemed reasonable. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't consider about the "Template:" and "Module:" namespaces. Now I'm convinced one faulty edit would affect the infoboxes. However, I think the template editors would work more efficiently on the "Module:Infobox" than they would on "Template:Infobox". Also, the template editors may either reject or turn downaccept or reject such edits on the module page. As said, you can reinstate the full protection on the "Template:" one. However, I'm sure template editors would do fine with the "Module:" one. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC); edited. 22:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
When a template invokes a module, intentionally having different protection levels for the two pages seems a bad idea — editing either one will cause significant changes. If the template needs full protection, the module does as well. I believe that template-protection is appropriate here because it's a good example of why the template editor right was created in the first place: aside from templates used in permanently protected pages (specifically, the Main Page and various Mediawikispace pages), trusted non-admins should be able to edit high-risk templates without having permissions-related difficulties. Pre-emptive protection generally goes against our ideal of open editing, and while of course it's appropriate with widely transcluded templates, it's better if we can achieve the same anti-vandal goal without full protection. To quote WP:PREEMPTIVE, "The duration of the protection should be set as short as possible, and the protection level should be set to the lowest restriction needed in order to stop the disruption while still allowing productive editors to make changes." We need protection to be indefinite on these templates and modules, but template editor, not full, is the lowest restriction needed in order to stop the disruption that would likely occur on these pages. Nyttend (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Now I feel better. Nothing wrong with TEs editing both namespaces of "Infobox", IMO. As you said, we can trust the ability of TEs to edit the "Infobox" of both namespaces. However, the issue can be raised at a very appropriate later time when things go wrong often (or frequently) with the plain "Infobox" of both namespaces. Meanwhile, I guess I must be careful making huge risky requests for now. --George Ho (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
At the risk of belaboring the obvious, template editors have been specifically selected for technical competence in editing templates. Admins haven't, and in fact most of them have no clue and are happy to avoid it. Switching to TE protection increases the proportion of knowledgeable users in the access group, and while more access may mean more opportunities for screwups, it also makes those knowledgeable users available to fix any errors. It's unlikely this change is a net loss. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point. I don't do major edits to non-simple templates (just because I don't understand the coding) unless the code is supplied to me in a sandbox, and even then I've at least once broken something significant without noticing until someone reverted my change, because I made some sort of error in the copy-paste process. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... Alternatively, if full protected (again), TEs can work on sandboxes and testcases to improve both namespaces of "Infobox". --George Ho (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Cease and desist plus fees for re-users of freely licensed images as a rip-off?[edit]
There is currently a survey going on at the German Wikipedia that evolves around the practice of a few photographers to licence their works with CC-by-sa or the like and then wait for re-users to violate the terms of the licence only to charge a fee in the range of some thousand EUR including a cease and desist letter. Apparently this has led to repeated complaints to the German Wikipedia where people found images and just used them for their own purposes without obeying the CC licence (which can sometimes be complicated). The survey at de.wikipedia is now proposing to remove such images from the local article namespace by default. Re-users are of course responsible for their actions and sloppy reading of the terms and conditions but the initiators of the survey think that the general "business" model of such photographers should not be rewarded by spreading their images all around Wikipedia.
So while I have not yet voted over there, the question has arisen whether the English WP has experienced someting similar in the past. I can't recall having witnessed any such cases but maybe anyone else? De728631 (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a terrible idea, our image default is CC by SA and a majority of our images are licensed that way... Of course they should belong on Commons but thats another issue...
These kinds of actions as described do not seem to be in the spirit of the type of community we aspire to be. I would personally not even have a problem with a global ban, if there are sufficient hints that these contributors consider our platform a businessmodel instead of their photos a contribution to free knowledge. People have a right to defend their copyright, but that doesn't equal to us having to host their material, just because it is CC-by-sa. I would consider such a practice similar to undisclosed COI article editing for the promotion of commercial purposes and maybe even touching upon Wikipedia:No legal threats. I'm not aware of precedents however. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:NLT is concerned with the disruptive action of attempting to use (or threatening to use) the courts to influence the contents of Wikipedia pages. Making legal threats against people not involved in the project, as is the case here, is a completely unrelated issue. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I absolutely agree that doesn't reflect one to one to this case. But again, in spirit... Besides, I wouldn't call reusers of our hosted content 'people not involved in the project'. Sharing in the sum and all that stuff.. The point is, no we don't have rules for this, but if you look at our mission, our origins and even our rules towards areas where we DO have jurisdiction/precedence, then behavior like that does not compatible and so avoiding that type of content is not a very strange idea. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
As far as "not in the spirit of the project", I tend to agree, and your suggestion of treating it like commercial COI sounds like a good idea to me; I just oppose blocking someone for taking legal action for what really is the infringement of our licensing terms. Nyttend (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any block being proposed. But if we identify contributors using this "business model" then maybe we tag their images with a notification of the potential problem, so that people who add their images to articles, or use them for other purposes, will have a chance to be aware. Dicklyon (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, it's not needed. All our CC license templates contain a link to the license, which already has such a warning. All reusers are already obligated to obey the license conditions, and some users' failure to enforce terms on infringers isn't a reason to provide special notice that other users will enforce those terms. Unless we're going to sanction someone for using Wikipedia improperly for commercial purposes, as TheDJ's suggesting and I'm lending toward supporting, there's no reason to do anything regarding this situation. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It is very easy to see a situation in which a committed free content advocate might contribute many images and be very angry when their lovingly created work is stolen by others (in the sense of being reused without complying with the really very straightforward license conditions). It might be that this is abuse, but it could equally just be righteous wrath. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Some users at Commons have big reminder templates for this purpose, including some who permit alternate, simpler licenses for noncommercial purposes (see Commons:User:Kadellar/credit or Commons:User:Fir0002/credits), so I agree. Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
It's common. I know a few photographers like this. But they are not doing it for the money. All they want is the terms of the CC-by-SA licence adhered to. Mostly, they just want to be credited for the image. Which they are entitled to under the licence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Like others, my first instinctive reaction here is a 'NLT'-type thing; if people do this, we should block them until they withdraw the threat. But of course that amounts to banning use of the CC-BY-SA license on en-wiki. Technically we're saying, "You can use CC-BY-SA but you can't enforce the conditions on the license," but it amounts to the same thing. Photographers should be free to enforce the terms of what is already a very generous license. GoldenRing (talk) 10:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
You, OP, might want to reexamine how you put that: "then wait for re-users to violate the terms of the licence". There is no violation of the licence until someone violates it, so it's not about 'waiting', it is about actually enforcing the licence, the licence we allow and encourage. The reason we allow and encourage it is it makes for a more informative encyclopedia. It's also a benefit to the world that others can also use it, if they follow the quite undemanding licence terms. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
If someone contributes an image to Wikipedia for the purpose of using it here (possibly in an article (s)he intends to write eventually), and gets angry when it's used against his/her license, then there is nothing wrong here. If a user uploads an image as a trap to get money, it's abuse of the license. As long as wre're in doubt, we should assume good faith. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 12:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify this: generally, licence enforcement is alright, but the concern voiced in the survey at de.wikipedia is that a number of external authors – not necessarily Wikipedia editors – who licensed and published their works under free CC licences, apparently did this only to catch unsuspecting and uninformed re-users and make money out of enforcing the licenses. I. e. the very first action they use to take against any offender is a cease and desist letter plus a hefty fee instead of just warning them in the first place. This fell back on the German WP when such images were used in articles and were then picked up by random readers. So, the motion at the survey is to effectively ban these images from authors who are known to pursue this type of business from being placed into any WP articles. De728631 (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
If we know someone is intentionally abusing our policies in order to intimidate and grab money from readers, we can block per WP:NOTHERE and delete their images. If, on the other hand, there are people just enforcing their legal rights, then there's nothing we can or should do. Would it be possible for us to place some kind of highly visible notice of the situation on the File: pages of CC images? Something on par with the old Orange Bar of Death talkpage notice. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
First of all you'd have to identify such a scheme beyond doubt, and since even forwarded OTRS mails are not indicative I'm wondering how this "misuse" should be proven. De728631 (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, as a "money making scheme", this would be an incredibly stupid waste of time: 1) you are only going to maybe even begin to collect money from someone who is actually taking your work and making money from it, and that's if you are willing to really pursue and pursue them, beyond a letter; 2) Generally, chasing down people is expensive will be of little value, except it will get the ethical takers to actually fix what they did wrong and give credit where credit is due. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
A related type of money making scheme became quite infamous in Germany when certain law firms specialised in tracking down copyvios of photos in Ebay auctions and similar venues so I can see where the caution at de.wikipedia is coming from. Apparently though it's not a problem here at the English WP. De728631 (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Not surprising; see the text immediately after citation #8 in the Impressum article. Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
You may be surprised, Alan, at how well this sort of scheme can work. Many people are either so unfamiliar with their legal rights, or so scared of a lawsuit, or so unwilling to consult a lawyer, they will simply pay up. Some lawyers have made millions doing this sort of thing on a massive scale. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Not surprised, just unimpressed. So, it's claimed that someone paid 1000s of Euros based on a letter (which is going to be be relatively few people). The immediate possibilities are: 1) they owed it, or 2) such payments are part of the payor's cost of doing business, or 3) they have money to throw away, or 4) they just cannot be protected from themselves. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Or 5) are victims of a legal conspiracy that has proven very effective in many different settings. Check out the saga of Prenda Law some time for one group of attorneys that operated an even more outrageous racketeering scheme. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 17:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
closed the WP:RS discussion, consensus seems to be that it was a disruptive discussion in the wrong place. Not the right way to dispute an RfC... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 18:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
How many times is the Daily Mail question going to be hashed over? We had an RfC, we had an editor who misinterpreted the RfC as permission to remove all citations to the newspaper, and now User:The Four Deuces seems to want to re-litigate the issue on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, [101] by asking what is basically an unanswerable rhetorical question about how the Daily Mail has affected the accuracy of Wikipedia articles. The question about the reliability of The Daily Mail has been settled, and I think this forum-shopping needs to stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I concur. We've definitely moved past the dead horse stage and getting into the realm of tenditious editing. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, please strike out your accusation of forum shopping. I have not raised this issue on any other noticeboard or discussion thread. If you do not want to reply to my discussion thread no one is forcing you to. The ban on using the Daily Mail is a major step and no doubt other editors will have questions about its implications. I am however happy to close the thread if that is the consensus. I just did not think that the request of one editor qualified.[102]TFD (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
No. The issue was decided in a general RfC held here in which many, many editors took part, and, despite the conclusion, you chose to go to another place to, essentially, re-open the case by attempting to undermine it with a rhetorical question that no one can answer. (Comments on your talk page point to your dissatisfaction with the result of the RfC, as does the Independent article linked there which quotes you.) So, you went to another forum when you were unhappy with the result in this forum. That's forum-shopping, so I will not strike it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Please see forum shopping: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".)" I have not raised this issue or anything about the Daily Mail on any other notice board or talk page or request to any administrator and ask again that you strike out your accusation. TFD (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The RFC wasn't widely published with an absolutely ridiculous outcome. The blowback is part of the ridiculousness. The faster the RfC is ignored, the better. --DHeyward (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
See WP:CLOSECHALLENGE for how to deal with an rfc close 'you don't like', otherwise any such challenge is outside of process and thus easily becomes tendentious. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Correct place to report interaction ban violation[edit]
ASKED AND ANSWERED
Question has been answered, file at AE or let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am under a 2-way interaction ban imposed by ARBCOM. I believe the other editor has violated this interaction ban. Where do I report this? This might seem like an overly simple question to bring here, but last time I tried to use an ARBCOM page I inadvertently violated my topic ban and got blocked for my trouble. I obviously want to avoid this happening again, so I am seeking admin advice. DrChrissy(talk) 20:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If the ban was a result of an arbitration case, WP:AE. If it's a community imposed restriction, ANI or here. I would point out to breach an interaction ban requires reverting or interacting directly, merely editing the same article is not a breach. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for this advice. The problem I have is that I took a complaint to AE in which I mentioned my ARBCOM-imposed and I was judged to have violated my topic ban by doing this - and I got blocked. I have absolutely no desire to re-hash that decision, but it seems logical to me that if I can get blocked for mentioning my ARBCOM-imposed topic ban at AE, I could be blocked for mentioning the editor with which I have an ARBCOM-imposed 2-way interaction ban. I hope I am making sense here. DrChrissy(talk) 21:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
BANEX doesn't allow one to report someone for a topic ban violation if doing so also violates your own topic ban. It does allow one to report a violation of an interaction ban they are a part of though. I would suggest you best have an iron clad diff of said violation though otherwise it's going to come off as tendentious and petty and likely boomerang. Capeo (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
It appears we have an icomlete record, while I found several Arbcom topic bans at WP:RESTRICT, I did not see any record of an interaction ban. Was this related to a particular case? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes - but I am not allowed to mention it. Oh, the beauty of this circularity! DrChrissy(talk) 21:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe you may have already violate your interaction ban, since you are not allowed to "make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly". WP:IBAN Clearly you have indirectly referred to your IBan partner in this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. IBAN violations can be discussed here without invoking circular argument stupidity. Well that was what we all hoped. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@Capeo, so where do you believe I should post my complaint? DrChrissy(talk) 21:47, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually it is listed at WP:RESTRICT, under the other user's name. For the benefit of everybody else [103]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
DrChrissy, from BANEX "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation)." I would expect here would be fine BUT, as I said, it best be an iron clad diff or it's just going to look like you can't drop the stick. Please ask yourself if it's worth the drama. Capeo (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you would like to comment on the posting by Beyond My Ken that in asking this question I have already violated my interaction ban? DrChrissy(talk) 21:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Strictly speaking BMK is correct. If I were you I'd either put up a diff of a clear violation or, better, just retract this whole thing. Capeo (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
(ec) I think we're allowed to day that it's Jytdog that DrChrissy is indirectly referring to. DrChrissy, why did you start this thread instead of following the clear instructions on WP:BANEX to "[ask] an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation)"? By opening this thread you have opened yourself up to possible sanctions, whereas if you had followed the instructions on BANEX you could point to them as allowing your inquiry. Did you not learn from your AE fiasco? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
(ec) I can answer that quite simply - I was told to do this publicly by ARBCOM after I emailed them and gave them details. DrChrissy(talk) 22:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
You are saying that you contacted ARBCOM, and they told you to start an AN thread in which you asked where to report the violation?? Would you care to say who at ARBCOM told you that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous - I'm not going to release the author of a private email. DrChrissy(talk) 22:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And for the record, the reason for the block at AE the last time you reported there was because your request was entirely without merit. So, like Capeo said, make sure you are certain it really is a violation, as in t other editor directly interacted with you or mentioned you by name, and you can proceed at AE. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The white-space experimentalist, from Brazil[edit]
Howdy. About 2 or 3 times a month, an unregistered editor from Brazil continues to show up & add/revert white-space to mostly the same articles, with some variations each visit. Though it's not a big problem, as (again) he immediately undoes his 'experiment edits?' Is there any way to put an end to his re-appearances? His latest IP (just blocked) was 177.139.45.123. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
This user's favoraite articles can be semi-protected; this ,ay be of little value if (s)he goes on to other srticles. Additionally, we could give this user a range block if the list of IPs is appropriate - you only gave me one, so I can't be sure. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 04:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
How about other IPs in the 177.139.44.0 to 177.139.47.255 range? This is a blockable range. And anything similar to 191.19.79.80? If the first 2 numbers are different, then the 2 IPs can't possibly be blocked as a single range. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I've looked into this before. Vivo's ranges are just stupidly large. You'll probably have to block all of Sao Paolo. Now, it should be possible to make an edit filter that stops white space edits from those ranges. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, the 177.139.45.123 IP has returned. GoodDay (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
After Mike V's inactivity we need at least two more new check users. --MarvellousSpider-Man 11:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
While I'm sure you're right, it's not anything this noticeboard can do anything about. You need to poke ArbCom. Jenks24 (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I've handled some of the CU requests. What's needed as well as CUs are admins to work through the 'open' requests and the 'checked' requests to determine what action needs to be taken (for example, whether there has been socking based on behavioural evidence and then whether or not a block is needed and for how long). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm active on IRC, and I get pinged whenever anyone puts "admin" in the edit summary in an SPI page. Whenever a clerk is "requesting admin action", I generally stop what I'm doing and respond to the request. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I said this on the functionaries list, but I want to publicly apologize for my lack of recent activity. I feel terrible (pun intended) because I just can't concentrate well enough to write or use CU. I really, really hope that events next week will bring an improvement and that I'll be back soon to terrorize sockmasters everywhere. :-) In the meantime, what Callanecc said – we need clerks to review the CU requests and we need admins to pitch in with the open cases. Katietalk 23:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Permissible, with the current userpage, likely. However, going by your first edit and area of interest, I would suggest that your second thoughts were correct. You are welcome to request a rename at WP:CHUN. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
There's a law firm named "Farrell Fritz" on Long Island [104], so I would say "no", and a visit to WP:CHU would be advisable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd also add that Fritz Farrell's first edit involved "Farrell, Fritz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky, & Armentano". So yes, I also think we need to see a name change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Could an admin please check Kellyf07 (talk·contribs)'s deleted file uploads and compare them against the user's visible file uploads? In at least one case, the user is uploading as free content files that are also tagged as non-free, and based on the existence of F7 talk page notices for files that have since been deleted, I suspect there are more (i.e. File:Erindi Carnivore Lion.jpg and File:Lion at Erindi.jpg could be the same thing) In addition, many of the non-free files that remain do seem to be replaceable. — Train2104 (t • c) 03:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The example you gave, it's a different image. Different lion even. I'll also note a reverse image search didn't turn up the new image anywhere else on the internet, as far as I can tell. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I looked at a few others, also different. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
OK then. What is to be done about the case I linked where the same file is uploaded under free and non-free? — Train2104 (t • c) 03:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
So I ran more of Kelly's uploads through a reverse image search, and at least some of the ones she claimed as her own work were pulled from the internet. Since this is at least the second batch of copyright violations, and she seems to dislike communication, she has been blocked indefinitely. I suppose there is a possibility she is, in fact, the professional photographer who took all those photos, or works for Erindi and has permission to upload them, but in that case her identity would have to be confirmed to OTRS. And that's of course, leaving aside the matter of having a massive gallery of advertising material in the Erindi article, which could always been handled as an editorial issue. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've marked the replaceable fair use ones for F7 and tagged the one suspect file that had since been moved to Commons. Looks like this can be marked Done. — Train2104 (t • c) 00:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Could any one revert the move of this page? As I have explained on the TP, the moves had to be negotiated. --Mhhosseintalk 18:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I've done it. I'm not sure why you couldn't, it might be something to do with the fact the page is under pending changes. Hut 8.5 18:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Hut 8.5: Thank you. I don't know either. --Mhhosseintalk 18:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
At Talk:Trump, there has been 3 RMs (and one botched one) in about 9 months. At Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia, however, there has been six, including the one that's currently open right now in the past three months. This does not include one that was opened by a sockpuppet, or one that was speedy closed as way too soon.
So here I am, proposing a moratorium at Talk:2016 United States election interference by Russia for at least 6 months, if not longer, because clearly the page needs one. Thoughts? SkyWarrior 21:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Addendum: I am fine with the current RM running its course, and if consensus falls in favor of a moratorium, then it should take place immediately after the current RM has closed. SkyWarrior 04:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The current one is uncontroversial and should be allowed to take effect. SPECIFICOtalk 22:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Specifico. Miniapolis 22:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Irrelevant; I've mentioned a moratorium in the Talk:Trump discussion above, and went unnoticed. The current RM can still run, but my proposal still stands. SkyWarrior 23:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
After the current uncontroversial RM, then the six month moratorium should take effect immediately. Thanks. Btw, what does the Trump RM moratorium have to do with this page? Steve Quinn (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely no relation, except for comparison (and the fact that I originally mentioned this in the moratorium discussion for [{Talk:Trump]], but to no response). SkyWarrior 03:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I oppose any moratorium as stifling legitimate discourse on Wikipedia. Editors are self-disciplined. Even though I believe we still have a WP:POVTITLE, I recently !voted to support the change to a grammatically better version. The underlying dispute will go on but I don't think anybody will dare to propose a title change unless new information comes to light. — JFGtalk 13:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
"Editors are self-disciplined." You really think so? Then why do we need AN, AN/I, EWN, AE, COIN, and so on and so forth, not to mention Arbcom? The problem is that even the very best of editors are, at times, not self-disciplined, and the articles dealing with American politics tend to attract editors with a strong personal POV who find it difficult to edit in a neutral fashion, lacking the self-discipline to do so. A moratorium would be the community's way of imposing discipline on that topic area, in much the same way that ArbCom has found it necessary to do with Discretionary Sanctions. I support the suggested moratorium after the current RM has completed, and think that 6 months, as imposed on Trump, would be advisable. Perhaps things will have calmed down by then. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Per User:SPECIFICO. Current move is un-controversial and seems to have consensus. IMHO, it should have been allowed to go forward when it was closed a month ago. There are a significant amount of users that are concerned with POVTITLE. I agree we shouldn't discuss the use of the world "alleged" again, but another title might work to meet their needs. They should not be shut off from finding a title that meets their concerns and other editors agree with.Casprings (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The topic ban from "all matters related to COI editing" imposed on Jytdog (talk·contribs) as part of the August 2016 unblock conditions is lifted. However, Jytdog is strongly warned any subsequent incident in which you reveal non-public information about another user will result in an indefinite block or siteban by the Arbitration Committee. To avoid ambiguity, "non-public information" includes (but is not limited to) any information about another user including legal names and pseudonyms, workplace, job title, or contact details, which that user has not disclosed themselves on the English Wikipedia or other WMF project.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 16:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
.Light❯❯❯ Saber 16:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Resolved
Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere
Not done It looks like something, possibly this notice, has spurred forther conversation there and it would be best to give previous particpants time to respond. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Facepalm Bus stop (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Done Unblocked. — xaosflux Talk 21:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
ansh666 07:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Obituaries
![[27]](http://www.stjohnsorganproject.com/uploads/1/2/4/9/12494409/6157081_orig.jpg?458){kind=link}
![[28]](http://www.stjohnsorganproject.com/uploads/1/2/4/9/12494409/7771763_orig.jpg?399){kind=link}
![[34]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACoat_of_arms_of_sir_Anthony_George_Berry.svg&type=revision&diff=226993788&oldid=226582873){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
