Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive291
Backlog at RFPP
There's a bit of a backlog at WP:RFPP at the moment – can anyone take a look? Thank you! –FlyingAce✈hello 16:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- There wouldn't be a backlog if people actually knew what they were doing. Out of 16 lodged requests, 25% of them have been declined immediately; others, such as Rocket League, will be, because of a distinct lack of egregious recent editing. Not only does sloppy filing add to the workload of patrolling admins, but the artificial creation of an extra long page doubtless puts off those who otherwise might be willing to join them. Happy days. — fortunavelut luna 16:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- True... At least the one I was keeping an eye on (Anne Marie Morris) has been taken care of. Back to vandal chasing... –FlyingAce✈hello 17:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- It may be time to start warning people who consistently request page protection too early. I have noticed some repeat offenders. ~ Rob13Talk 23:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- The number of repeat offenders has dropped though. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- It may be time to start warning people who consistently request page protection too early. I have noticed some repeat offenders. ~ Rob13Talk 23:31, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- True... At least the one I was keeping an eye on (Anne Marie Morris) has been taken care of. Back to vandal chasing... –FlyingAce✈hello 17:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- 8 requests left. Samsara 19:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Cleared, for now. Samsara 23:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Another backlog
...at WP:UAA. 11 cases outstanding. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 18:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Rev-del request
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.
Would an admin please rev-del this edit? Thanks. 2601:1C0:101:DA19:5C50:CA04:F35F:9FA (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Done by KrakatoaKatie. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Martin Poulter
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It seems odd to me that User:MartinPoulter is not an "autopatrolled" editor. He is a former board member of Wikimedia UK, Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library, a UK Wikimedian of the year - and, of course, a long-term editor in good standing. Please can someone rectify this unfortunate oversight? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- If he asks for it, he will probably get it; I see no reason for a third party to request it for him. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled. Thanks for the suggesion, Andy. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- @MartinPoulter: I've assigned it to you. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Requested at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled. Thanks for the suggesion, Andy. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Request to create redirect with blacklisted title
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects#Redirect request: Marine Midland Corporation is a reasonable redirect request (mentioned in article). Can any admin accept it? feminist 10:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Article move request
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, Could someone move Mark Fischbach back to Markiplier, Seán McLoughlin (YouTuber) back to Jacksepticeye and Evan Fong to VanossGaming- Both were moved without any consensus and unfortunately the system doesn't allow me to move them back, I know I should ask at RM but this would be alot quicker, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 00:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Removal of specific permissions
I am requesting removal of account creator, new page reviewer, and page mover rights. If I need to perform tasks in the future that require these rights, I will request them again at that time, however I do not now see myself using them any time soon. Thank you. Waggie (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Backlog at WP:AFD
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could some admin check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs? I handled most AFDs which ended in the last three days but some of them I can't do because I participated or feel too biased to handle them. Regards SoWhy 07:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Revdel needed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could I have a revdel to IP's edit here please. It contains a link to a pirated copy of a film. Thanks Nördic Nightfury 08:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Boing! said Zebedee The IP's other edits also need revdel-ing. If you wouldn't mind :) Nördic Nightfury 08:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
CSD criteria U1 and U2
Hi there, this is a question for administrators which requires no action, so I'm guessing this is the right place rather than ANI. I've had an account for some years - call it User:Omega - and about a year ago I renamed it to, say, User:Upsilon. I did not do this under any kind of cloud, and soon afterwards I re-registered the Omega account while logged in as Upsilon in order to prevent it from being taken. I realise that the log entry that says I registered Omega while logged in as Upsilon is a permanent part of the log, but nonetheless I am considering putting in requests under CSD criteria U1 and U2 to delete the user and user talk pages for Omega which currently redirect to Upsilon. I am also considering a similar request for a talk page archive, maintained by a bot, which contains only talk page discussions addressed to Omega.
So, my question is, would admins be willing to action all three of these requests? Also, if these requests are actioned, will my edits for the purpose for placing the CSD templates disappear from user contributions?
Thank you in advance. 2605:6000:E947:A00:80BE:BFEB:6CE9:D1F3 (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Second question first: when a page is deleted, all edits made to that page disappear from your contributions, but without deleting a page, all edits to that page remain in your contributions. Meanwhile, since the log specifically says that Y created Ω, I would be happy to treat all these requests by Y as if they were being made by Ω. This means that I'd readily delete User:Ω, because I'd do this for anyone if it weren't some drastically bad-faith situation, but it means that I wouldn't delete User talk:Ω or its archives, because it's important to maintain a continuity of links from pages where you had reason to leave a signature. Unless the user accounts need to be 100% separated, it wouldn't be right to break things, but anyway the user creation log demonstrates that the accounts aren't separate: in my opinion, either you need to leave User talk:Ω alone, or you need to register another account without any logged entries. You can make U1-related requests off-wiki if you want to maintain the 100% separation. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just an additional thought to Nyttend's comments. If [[User talk:Omega]] is still only a redirect to [[User talk:Upsilon]] or if there is nothing of any importance on it now, and its archives were made by copying rather than renaming the talk page, then all of [[User talk:Omega]]'s relevant history should now be in the history of [[User talk:Upsilon]] as a result of the rename - and so I think it might be safe to delete [[User talk:Omega]] and its archives. The point about maintaining a continuity of links from pages where you had reason to leave a signature is an interesting one, but I'm not sure policy demands it - links from old sigs are surely already lost if a user renames their account and then someone else registers an account in the old name. (Links from article contributions are needed for copyright purposes, but the renaming will have taken care of that.) 605:6000:E947:A00:80BE:BFEB:6CE9:D1F3, if you want to send me an email from your current account and identify the actual accounts in question, I'll be happy to have a look and let you know what I think can be deleted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Request to replace p tags
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.
Thera are 130 pages that contains a p tag. In most cases we should use simpler wiki markups in place of these HTML-like tags. See MOS:MARKUP and WP:Deviations. I would like to fix that from my normal account using WPCleaner (or AWB) or by my bot account using Autosave mode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- If you mean <p> </p> , that's a simple tag, wouldn't changing that be a cosemtic change ? К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 19:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- @KoshVorlon: - it would indeed be disallowed per cosmeticbot .. unless there is a community consensus. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- If you mean <p> </p> , that's a simple tag, wouldn't changing that be a cosemtic change ? К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 19:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
No problem with this .. but probably best from a bot account to not annoy editor's watchlists (which will hardly happen with 130 pages though). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Xaosflux below, that from that bot account you would need first to go through a BFRA. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- SNOW Oppose to main account Seeing as you are under a editing restriction from using (semi)automation tools on your editor account until at least September 7th - no way, come back in 2 months after you request to get your ban removed. As far as creating a new bot task, assuming you develop consensus here this would still need a BRFA filed. — xaosflux Talk 19:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Heavyweight oppose. "fix that from my normal account using AWB"S:D/789807112 There is a minimum of two months before the ban on AWB use on the main account can even be appealed, nevermind any possibility of whether it is lifted or not. —Sladen (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Re: Sladen, User:Xaosflux I am not requesting to do this right now. I can start in 58 days. Recall that these discussions tend to usually last a month. So, I started the discussion early enough. Dirk Beetstra In a previous BRFA I was asked first to come here. In fact, it was Xaosflux who asked first the discussion here to end before approving a BRFA. (I am refrring to the invisible characters case/discussion which is still active above. See here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Geez, stop with these requests. Go and edit an article by hand, why don't you, it'll remind you how the other half lives. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken True but as you may have just noticed, someonee may arue this is not appropriate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Geez, stop with these requests. Go and edit an article by hand, why don't you, it'll remind you how the other half lives. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Re: Sladen, User:Xaosflux I am not requesting to do this right now. I can start in 58 days. Recall that these discussions tend to usually last a month. So, I started the discussion early enough. Dirk Beetstra In a previous BRFA I was asked first to come here. In fact, it was Xaosflux who asked first the discussion here to end before approving a BRFA. (I am refrring to the invisible characters case/discussion which is still active above. See here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- And to be clear, according to your restriction 07SEP is the EARLIEST a future appeal of yours could expire, your current restriction has no expiration. You certainly can propose a new bot task, and this discussion could show if there is community support for such a task. — xaosflux Talk 22:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose as a standalone edit. I can't think of any compelling reason to do this other than to say we did it. I don't think it inappropriate to start these discussions while the ban is on, as long as the number of them open at any one time is reasonable and as long as the operator understands consensus here wouldn't override the ban. ~ Rob13Talk 22:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- This task affects small screens Moreover, this CHECKWIKI task which I thought you would stay away. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- BU Rob13 in the discussion I did not claim I will do with with AWB durng the restiction period. My restriction is resticted to AWB and not for my bot account neither. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, the restriction is any semi-automated editing including AWB, but that's beside the point. I'm stating that this discussion is fine, contrary to what others have said above. I'm agreeing with you on that much, so I'm not sure why you're responding to my statement. We've been over exactly what my recusal from CHECKWIKI for BAG means, so I'm not responding to that again. ~ Rob13Talk 23:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Magioladitis, the wording is wider: "…AWB or any other semi-automated or automated editing tools (broadly construed)…"Special:PermaLink/789518720#User:Magioladitis_high_speed_editing —Sladen (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sladen Thanks for pointing this out. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment I added WPCleaner as an option fo how this can be done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Question I've checked MOS:MARKUP and WP:Deviations. What's the benefit of getting rid of <p> tagging? Is <p> being deprecated, comparable to things like <center>? However, I'm also not exactly clear what you want to do instead. Are you just looking to use <br />, or to add line breaks, or something like that? If so, I'm fine with the idea itself, since indeed it's in line with MARKUP and Deviations. However, I don't understand why it's a problem to do it manually; just open up a bunch of tabs and make the changes in batches. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nyttend Sure. I can do it manually but I am afraid that there will still be reactions everytime I try to do something systematically. No rason to do this via AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Everyone uses tabbed browsing (Willy on Wheels was using it twelve years ago!); why would someone object that you'd followed the wrong procedure? Just do a bunch of Ctrl+F work and copy/paste your edit summary, and if someone complains at you, point them to your contributions and show them how there's a time lag between each batch, the result of you closing the first batch, opening the second, and performing the changes before you save them all. If people doesn't believe that, they're the problems, not you. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: as to why this a procedure concern see: Wikipedia:Editing restrictions (search for username) - there has been some prior challenges with this editor. — xaosflux Talk 00:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Everyone uses tabbed browsing (Willy on Wheels was using it twelve years ago!); why would someone object that you'd followed the wrong procedure? Just do a bunch of Ctrl+F work and copy/paste your edit summary, and if someone complains at you, point them to your contributions and show them how there's a time lag between each batch, the result of you closing the first batch, opening the second, and performing the changes before you save them all. If people doesn't believe that, they're the problems, not you. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Nyttend Sure. I can do it manually but I am afraid that there will still be reactions everytime I try to do something systematically. No rason to do this via AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- My suggestion to topic ban them from automated editing outright aint seeming so ridiculous now is it. Countdown to next request in 5, 4, 3.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose bot editing per WP:COSMETICBOT. Oppose this editor making changes in any form because of their editing restrictions and especially in light of the arbitration case that only closed a little about 4 months ago. Yes this is the prescribed avenue of requesting the change, however given previous drama, it would be best if Magioladitis dropped this issue full stop and walked away. This is only asking for trouble. No objection to cleaning these up in the cause of a substantial change to the page that improves it by an uninvolved user (and without prompting by Mag). If nothing else I suggest making it abundantly clear to Mag: Stay away from any cosmetic changes entirely for an extended period of time to demonstrate you can understand the difference between a cosmetic edit and one that has existing consensus. Hasteur (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Site ban for Nate Speed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just received a death threat via email from a sock puppet of User:Nate Speed (see also this diff). I think it's time we site banned this person. Besides the extensive edit warring and sock puppetry, I'm not the only one to receive harassing emails. There are other complaints in the sock puppetry case archive. I've reported him to the emergency contact at the Wikimedia Foundation and forwarded the death threat, so, if we're lucky, he will be facing some kind of repercussions for this behavior. Normally, in a case where someone will never be unblocked, I'd say the difference between blocking and banning someone is mostly semantics. However, sending me death threats changes my feelings on the matter. I want to make sure this editor is never unblocked and knows that his behavior is not tolerated by the community. I also have some possibly futile hope that if his death threats continue, it will make some kind of difference if he's listed as "banned", rather than "blocked" when it comes time to assess whether to escalate the situation beyond the WMF. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support site ban Geez, enough already. Sorry you're going through that, NRP. Katietalk 01:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support ban There's absolutely no place for this in the least. RickinBaltimore (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support site ban Such outright bullying needs to be dealt with in the harshest manner.TH1980 (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support Have also received death threats from this person. Sro23 (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support By all means. General Ization Talk 02:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support This kind of behavior should never be tolerated. SkyWarrior 02:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- By the way... SkyWarrior 02:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support site ban and I sincerely hope the WMF takes this to the authorities or further. –Davey2010Talk 02:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support site ban. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support. I've run into this user so much and they have threatened me and many others countless times. —MRD2014 02:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support site ban Treating ones fellow editors in such a manner is contemptible. MarnetteD|Talk 02:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Just had to block another IP for block evasion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support, clearly. But am I the only one who finds it kind of weirdly amusing that he self-censors his own curse words? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- And ends each profane summary with a smiley (frowney?) wearing a funny hat. General Ization Talk 03:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Very clear-cut case. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support Obvious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Disagreement
Hello. We have a disagreement with User:Robsinden. He thinks that articles like 1969–70 European Cup and 1969–70 European Cup Winners' Cup should not be included in navboxes of this kind: Template:1969–70 in Spanish football, Template:1969–70 in Scottish football, Template:1969–70 in English football, Template:1969–70 in Cypriot football. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 July 10#Cyprus football templates and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 28#Template:1958–59 in Cypriot football. Maybe he is correct, maybe not. But I disagree with him. I have told him to discuss the issues with other users that are familiar with sports articles and users that are familiar with templates to say their opinion. But, he continue to remove the links from the Cyprus templates, (while he is not removing them from the templates of other countries even though he believe that they must be removed). Is that a right behavior? It will be more correct to have a discussion first about the subject with others users before he remove the links, just because that is his opinion? Thank you for your time. Xaris333 (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Xaris333: If there is a content dispute, please use the appropriate forum, i.e. talk pages or WP:DRN. Input from interested editors might also be requested at WT:FOOTY. See WP:DR for detailed instructions. As stated above, this page is only for general notices, not specific problems. Regards SoWhy 16:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Review my block of Srwikieditor (talk · contribs)
Hi, all! I blocked Srwikieditor as a single purpose account whose sole purpose over the last 3.5 years has been to force links to a single website onto several aviation related templates. Srwikieditor was warned by Kuru (talk · contribs) at 11:22, 15 May 2015 that they would be blocked if s/he continue the spamming behavior.
Srwikieditor twice added the link to {{US-airport-ga}} after Kuru's final warning:
I don't expect this to be a particularly controversial block, but I'm not very active these days and I was involved in the discussions opposing the link so it's here for the eyes of judgment. Feel free to adjust as anybody sees fit or not at all! Best, --auburnpilot talk 22:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Adminstats
I've long had an adminstats section on my talk page. It now reads Jimfbleak is not an administrator or an account creator. Therefore they have been disallowed the use of adminstats. I assumed that this was passing vandalism, but if it is, it's too subtle for me to see what's wrong, since the code looks OK. The actual adminstats page lists me, so I'd be grateful if anyone can work out what's happening, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've been pointed to User talk:NeilN/Archive 37#Administrator_or_not? , so it's clearly a known problem, no need to reply Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That's just the bot hiccupping, happens every few weeks. What you mean though is Template:Adminstats/Jimfbleak, not User:JamesR/AdminStats, which is a different page. I fixed it for you, tomorrow the bot should run fine again (see the page's history for what I mean). If it happens again, just undo the last edit by the bot until it works properly again. Regards SoWhy 15:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- So, many thanks for the above and the heads-up on my talk Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) That's just the bot hiccupping, happens every few weeks. What you mean though is Template:Adminstats/Jimfbleak, not User:JamesR/AdminStats, which is a different page. I fixed it for you, tomorrow the bot should run fine again (see the page's history for what I mean). If it happens again, just undo the last edit by the bot until it works properly again. Regards SoWhy 15:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Image restore
Hi, Could an admin restore File:Some Girls titlecard.png please, It was deleted because I used the incorrect license template, I've asked the deleting admin but they've not been on all day so figured I'd ask here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Possible spam/edit filter addition
- amazon.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Hey there. I'm pretty stupid about how the various filters work, so I'd appreciate some guidance. I have been reverting a lot of these edits over that past two weeks or so, always just the one edit by different accounts. Would the specific URL or anything else in there be a good candidate to be blacklisted? --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- The url is the most logical since they could change the wording but don't have the power to change that url. That is a lot of filter, not sure I would run it for longer than needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Bongwarrior, we need some of those accounts in an SPI report. I can see some of your more recent reverts. We need to have a checkuser see if rangeblocking will halt them. As for the link they are using, that is a good question for Dirk, is amazon.in/dp/B01EJQOOU2 a url fragment that COIBot/Poke can handle without catching all amazon.in links? This is looking like it is worth blacklisting to me.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lovesblackchoco is a related SPI filed in June. I've blocked somewhere around thirty, I think, and I'll work on getting a list together. The earliest edits go back to about March. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Berean Hunter: argh, one of those. We can blacklist or revertlist individual links and monitor special fragments. Reporting on them is not possible, it would spit out the whole stuff. I could in principle run the rather expensive MySQL statement on the db and just give a manual dump (running now). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lovesblackchoco is a related SPI filed in June. I've blocked somewhere around thirty, I think, and I'll work on getting a list together. The earliest edits go back to about March. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
@Bongwarrior, Berean Hunter, and Dennis Brown: I've put the MySQL dump in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/amazon.in#Requested_dump (the related content page is not going to help, too many on this domain). If they used other domains (amazon.com), please let me know, and please make sure that they are blacklisted appropriately. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Awesome. That list of users looks to be exclusively socks. About half are stale but they are easily associated by naming conventions combined with spamming those links. This will save Bongwarrior time looking unless he has more than that report shows. I'll start listing and vetting them tomorrow...I count 54 unique accounts that I have saved in a text editor and I'll check to make sure that we don't net an innocent. Dirk, thank you very much. That expensive SQL query just saved us a great deal of time and we might not have gotten such a nice comprehensive job as this has done.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC) - That is good stuff, but missing a few accounts that used a different, longer link [1] and a few others from June 26 like this one, which seems to match exactly but wasn't in the report. Either way, this looks like the majority of what I've seen, with quite a few that I wasn't aware of. Thank you all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Bongwarrior and Berean Hunter: The bot has a backlog, so some may not have been parsed yet. I'll run some varieties of the query later (I had to leave), let's see if more shows up. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Bongwarrior and Berean Hunter: I've updated the dump, see diff. I now looked for the code in any link, there are a handful of additional .com links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- SPI case filed. I noticed that the original accounts from the SPI archive were not in the SQL report and I found one that wasn't mentioned.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC) - @Berean Hunter: m:LiWa3 is currently eating away a rather massive backlog (while also still keeping up with current edits). There may still be more to come (the backlog will likely take LiWa3 a couple of weeks to parse). I hope you can find the other ones by relation through CU. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- SPI case filed. I noticed that the original accounts from the SPI archive were not in the SQL report and I found one that wasn't mentioned.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programs renamed by Modi Government - review requested
Hi all. Please also see this ANI thread for further information. I closed the above AFD and do stand by the closure and the reasoning I gave both at the AFD and at ANI (the conduct of the user who initially reverted the closure was taken to ANI by someone else). On the ANI thread I did note I was happy for an admin to overturn my closure, as I have indeed been off Wikipedia for some time, however, no one has responded, so I am asking here if an admin can please review my closure of this AFD and either overturn the close or endorse the outcome. Thanks. Steven Crossin 02:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Closure was policy based, also the redirects are cheap. Capitals00 (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment--While I agree, that it was a bad NAC (Hey! How did you choose that particular one?!:)), I don't find any reason to undo a NAC when the closure was seemingly correct and well-thought out!Winged Blades Godric 03:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I tend to use common sense when editing. I saw the AFD and noticed it had been open for 2 weeks, and was well past the second closure time. I reviewed it, and came to an outcome, as I felt most editors would come to the same conclusion when assessing the consensus, and thus I closed the AFD (as there was no technical impediment from me doing so, such as deletion). I accept that my outcome may have been incorrect, and have asked it to be reviewed here for that reason. Steven Crossin 03:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Commnt: In WP:NAC, it says that
[A]ny non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin.
I think the same principle should apply here - if the closure was correct, then don't undo or reopen it. If the result was wrong, deal wit hit due to the result, not the closing user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like a good policy based close. User:Steven Crossin I imagine after the disruption your close appears to have created that you will likely avoid closing such complicated/controversial AFDs untill you have the bit/extra tools. I think you would make a great admin, please go for it. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steven Crossin - Govindaharihari (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'd rather hang myself, haha. Steven Crossin 15:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Despite hundreds of users who started editing after that RFA are now admins.. Capitals00 (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I might have closed it differently, but the close was reasonably within discretion, policy based and sane, so I wouldn't overturn. I still maintain that policy is clear that controversial discussions should be left to admin, but that isn't a valid reason to overturn a close that is otherwise reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would not have undone the close had my only objection been the NAC. The main issue I have with it is the fact that it ran afoul of deletion policy. NAC guidelines clearly state that non-admins should only close AfD's where consensus is explicitly clear. This obviously wasn't the case here. Opinions were many and varied. A case where multiple comments need to be sorted and weighed against guidelines is precisely the kind that NAC guidelines instruct should be left to an administrator. I consider this example to be an illustration of why these guidelines should be followed, rather than than a reason to blindly revert. This brings me to deletion policy: "Egregious" would have been a better word for me to have used than "ridiculous". It would have conveyed my meaning without the incendiary undertones that accompany the latter word. Therefore, I'll call this "an egregious non-admin supervote". Make no mistake; this was a supervote. That doesn't mean the closer had anything other than the best of intentions. It simply means he voted in closing the discussion. My biggest problem with all of this was the fact that he openly and clearly stated that he assigned more weight to the "delete" votes that protested the article's lack of neutrality. That flies in the face of our deletion policy; content disputes are not dealt with by deleting the article. Lack of neutrality is a cause for improvement, discussion, or, if necessary, adding a "disputed" tag at the top. It is not, however, a valid reason for deletion. Assigning more weight to votes that are clearly not policy-based itself clearly contradicts policy. Steven Crossin is clearly intelligent, eloquent, and amiable. It was never my intention to suggest anything to the contrary. My objection to his close was not meant as an attack on his motives, and certainly not on his character. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not objective here because Steven closed the AfD as I !voted in it but I don't think it was a super!vote per se. It was imho the correct assessment of the various strength of the arguments, including especially Wikipedia:Content forking, the strongest reason mentioned for redirecting/merging. I do agree it was a bad NAC though because the policy is clear that non-admins (for whatever reasons) should not close such AFDs. Regards SoWhy 10:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Redirecting without merging was not proposed by any editor, and now we have a page redirected to one that doesn't mention the subject of the redirect. Peter James (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Peter James raises a very good point. There's obviously not going to be consensus to overturn the close, but the issue of a page redirecting to an article that doesn't mention the subject will need to be addressed. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- Basically per Dennis. It's not how I would have closed it - the redirect seems still somewhat vulnerable to POV criticism to me - but was policy based, within discretion and should not be overturned. GoldenRing (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think that if the only problem you can see with a discussion is that it was an NAC, then you have to let it stand. I don't see any egregrious issues with the substance of the close that would justify re-starting the
dramadiscussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC).
While I'm not sure this will go anywhere, I just had a thought and I thought I'd run it by people for reaction which I can take two idea lab if there's any support.
Should we have a concept called "conditional close"? It would be a closing statement by someone who is not an admin in cases where the consensus is not crystal clear and thus otherwise ineligible for NAC. A conditional close would occur in at least two situations:
- A well-established editor such as Steve Crossin, who is substantial clue but no desire to go through the ringer and ask for the mop.
- An editor planning to go for an RFA sometime in the future but not quite yet ready.
In both cases, the close would not be final until an admin reviews and sign off. By constructing the conditional close, the editor is making it easier for the admin to do the review. In case 1 the admin can review the proposed conditional close and simply sign off. In case 2 the same occurs but it also gives the community a chance to see how the perspective admin evaluates the situation. In both cases, if the admin disagrees with a conditional close they should explain the reasoning but in case to they might go into a little bit more detail as part of the learning process.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- This idea flies in the face of WP:NAC, and basically creates yet another level of user-rights: "admin without a mop". I'm curious how any conditional close would make it easier for the closing admin to do the review, unless "review" means "rubber stamp". Joefromrandb (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- By the way, that wasn't meant to be rhetorical; it's a genuine question. Take this case, for example: if these rules were in place, and you were going to close the AfD, in what way would Steven's finding-of-fact have made it easier for you? Joefromrandb (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Joefromrandb: S Philbrick is essentially proposing that NAC be amended. (Obviously it's not a formal proposal.) Therefore, saying it "flies in the face of WP:NAC" is not a particularly good argument not to do it. --Izno (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call it "amended". "Nullified" is more like it. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - This sounds like clerking at AFD. Putting aside objections to the proposal itself and let's go back a step. The real question is, how regularly are closes challenged such that a clerking process like this would be required? One comment though, if consensus is not crystal clear, then it's better for non admins to just leave it as an admin required close. Blackmane (talk) 02:36, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- I was giving this some thought today, because as you note, I couldn't see myself running for RFA. At the moment we have the ability for non-admins to close RFCs. Is there a reason that non-admins shouldn't be able to close XFD discussions where the outcome does not require the tools (delete). Of course, some safety nets should be considered to ensure that not just anyone can close an XFD, but similar to RFCs, the amount of non-admins that actually would close a discussion is rather small. We have standard processes in place to overturn the outcome of an XFD when the result isn't agreed with, similar to RFCs. Is there an actual reason we can't consider this? Steven Crossin 05:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- There is no issue on non-admins closing discussions where tools are not required. If an XFD is a clear redirect result for example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Given all that has been thrown at you, I think you have handled yourself quite well, Steven Crossin. As for closing AFDs, non-admin still can, but it is strongly recommended they avoid contentious AFDs. That is the only sticking point here. Often times, it isn't even about being wrong or right in the close, as closing some AFDs will cause a few people to get upset no matter how you close it. That is exactly the type that we want admin to close. People are often more willing to accept a contentious close by an admin compared to a non-admin. I could drone on about the psychology of perceived authority (and how that doesn't guarantee a better close), but in the end, that is just how it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Mad7744
I've been working User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report looking for unsuitable pages, but hundreds of very short military bios all created by User:Mad7744 form a good chunk of the entries. Many follow set text like these recent creations Draft:Manuel R. Zabala Draft:Robert H. Thompson Draft:Walter G. Amerman Draft:Frank E. Palo Jr.. It seems like these names would be best presented on a list together because at least these subjects won an award. Other very old drafts do not even assert anything but that the subject was a solder or airman - Draft:Richard Drucks Draft:Andreas Zink Draft:Alfred Zuner etc. etc. etc.
Previous attempts to stop this activity have not worked. See examples User_talk:Mad7744 User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_1 User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_2 User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_1#Military_biography_articles, User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_1#Notability_of_subjects_.28reminder.29, User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_1#Military_biographies, and an earlier ANi I started [2] User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_1#ANi_Discussion that lead to this post User_talk:Mad7744/Archive_1#Freeloading to his talk page over a year ago:
- Freeloading
- There is a rule that articles in draft: space which have an -AfC submission- tag may be deleted if they have not been touched for more than six months. Unfortunately there is no rule for articles in that space without the tag but I think that the same rule should apply. Now you have a massive number of such articles. I have put in User:Mad7744/drafts a list of the 499 oldest of them. Another view is that you could be considered to be using Wikipedia as a free host - 88.8% of your edits are in draft space.
- I want to see a concerted move by you to either request the deletion of these drafts or improve them to article status and get them submitted for approval for mainspace. I note that they survived this recent discussion but If changes do not happen within the next few months, I shall propose a bulk deletion of your drafts. (Legacypac please note.) — User:RHaworth 15:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't see any effort by the user to address these concerns All the deletions I checked were initiated by other users and I did not find any promotions in my spot checks. User has never touched their talk page [3] so not sure how to communicate with them. The majority of their mainspace creations have been deleted, they stopped using AfC so G13 does not apply to their drafts, and the drafts just keep piling up.
I hate to suggest this but... I propose an editing BLOCK to get their attention, stop the daily creation of more drafts, and prompt a dialog on their talk page. I also suggest we give consideration to User:RHaworth's proposal for bulk deleting these drafts without having to subject each one individually to MfD. Pushing this many drafts through AfC submission or MfD debates is going to be a whole lot of work otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
UPDATE: He responded on his talk page [4] with "You can delete every draft article I have made up to November 9th, 2015 but do not delete any draft articles beyond that date. Mad7744 (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)" That covers close to 1000 pages [5] assuming none are now redirects. Please don't make me CSD them all individually! Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Working on it. —Cryptic 21:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I believe that the two IPs below belong to the same user, as they've been creating and editing same drafts:
- I suggest that the drafts older than 6 months created by the IPs be included in the group deletion as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Should be everything. I came to the same conclusion with 98.229.53.195; 73.186.114.106 had no edits surviving in Draft:. —Cryptic 22:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest that the drafts older than 6 months created by the IPs be included in the group deletion as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
There is good reason that non-draft-tagged pages be not subject to G13 — they're not necessarily drafts. There's no bright-line way to judge whether one be a draft or not. If you want to see these pages be deleted, take them to MFD; this isn't the place for a deletion discussion. Nyttend (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Two archive pages and a talk page worth have already been deleted via MfD or CSD one at a time. That creates very good precedent to deal with these in bulk, and I also brought this here to figure out a way to prevent continued creations. I've asked more questions on his talk and hope to get a response. My note about this report and a possible BLOCK finally got his attention today. Legacypac (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- This may be some sort of WP:ADVOCACY. See, for example, the "Category:German soldiers" as edited by one of the IPs: [6]. Note the suggestion that " All these pages don't exist. To see information on them,click on the page go and click on the talk page on the top left hand corner." I'm not sure what the purpose is, but 95%+ of these drafts are on subjects that do not meet WP:SOLDIER. For example, the qualifying award for U.S. servicemen would be the Medal of Honor; Distinguished Service Cross does not really help establish their notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- he just says he's going to update them. Cryptic just deleted about a 1000 pages and there must be at least as many again (about 1500 it turns out). Many are low rank Nazi German solders, holocast victums, and American privates. Is the goal to cover every WWII participant/victim with a Draft page? I'm not understanding the modivation to do all this work over 3 years now. It's not like the business spam or autobio pages These subjects are all dead. Legacypac (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- This may be some sort of WP:ADVOCACY. See, for example, the "Category:German soldiers" as edited by one of the IPs: [6]. Note the suggestion that " All these pages don't exist. To see information on them,click on the page go and click on the talk page on the top left hand corner." I'm not sure what the purpose is, but 95%+ of these drafts are on subjects that do not meet WP:SOLDIER. For example, the qualifying award for U.S. servicemen would be the Medal of Honor; Distinguished Service Cross does not really help establish their notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- "There is good reason that non-draft-tagged pages be not subject to G13 — they're not necessarily drafts. There's no bright-line way to judge whether one be a draft or not."This is clearly down the road of nonsense/madness, when words no longer mean what they mean. DraftSpace should be *only* for drafts. If it is not a draft, get it out of DraftSpace. Userfy, ProjectSpace, or Delete. I am definitely moving to the position that everything in DraftSpace should be subject to CSD#G13. (I am approaching the position that DraftSpace as a whole should be WP:CSD#G2-ed, as a failed test, more work than it is worth, the best thing said about it is that is draws crap page dumps away from mainspace but that's at the expense of an extremely poor editor experience for the newcomers) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Proposed Restriction
I tend to have slightly esoteric viewpoints regarding bulk creations in Draft space. I feel (in order to reduce the disruption) that No page shall be created in userspace or draftspace by Mad7744 that does not have an AFC review template on it. No page created under this restriction shall be removed from AFC review until such time that this restricton is successfully appealed. The goal is to have these pages be improved and promoted to mainspace. Draft space is supposed to be getting pages ready for mainspace, not a semi-elastic storage. Reviewers are pretty good about being able to tell which submissions have hope, and which ones should be put out to pasture. Hasteur (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support sounds like a good plan. I also think we should submit some more drafts to deletion discussion in batches. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Looking back at my comment, obviously if a page gets promoted to mainspace the AFC review template is no longer valid because it's been promoted to mainspace. Not going to disclaim the WP:BEANS situation as there's already proposals and common sense in place for that. cc Legacypac Hasteur (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support restrictions. In addition, I propose that drafts older than 6 months be group deleted. I did a spot check and none would meet WP:SOLDIER or any other notability guideline or essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
bulk deletion plan
- he recently posted on his talk page a comment that we can delete, improve or whatever we want and he is essentially quitting for now. I'm willing to take that as consent to bulk delete if an Admin will take on the big task. User:Cryptic? Axe any Draft without a credible claim that gets it past WP:SOLDIER regardless of age? Efforts to deal with this go back 3 years and finally headway. Let's not let this chance pass by. Legacypac (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Admin User:Maile66 accepted that CSD Hasteur. There are almost 1500 more drafts to go according to [9]. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Legacypac Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rudolf Schicketanz as the year 2014 bulking launched. I know it's a bit creative way to do the deletion, but I think we can agree to not flood the user's talkpage with 1500 CSD nominations. Breaking it down into monthly (or submonthly) categories will allow MFD to do it's job, but also keep the user talkpage spam down. Hasteur (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Still a lot of work to list 1500 pages at MfD and we don't really need MfD given we have author consent. I agree don't flood the guy's talk. Why not do one CSD for the entire list? Are you thinking we should check page by page before an Admin looks at it? Our spot checks and Cryptic's work show nothing that should be kept. If we can recruit an Admin, they could do this based on this thread. Legacypac (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Although unstated in my comment up above, my original idea was a mass MFD (remember that nominations don't have to be individual; you can always bundle them), or yes you could simply request G7s based on that comment from Mad7744. Why would we be adding a lot of CSD nominations to the talk page? If you're thinking of using some sort of semiautomated tagging process that leaves a talk-page note, let me know; I could full-protect his talk page immediately before you start and then unprotect it as soon as you're done, thus keeping his talk page clear. Nyttend (talk) 11:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Still a lot of work to list 1500 pages at MfD and we don't really need MfD given we have author consent. I agree don't flood the guy's talk. Why not do one CSD for the entire list? Are you thinking we should check page by page before an Admin looks at it? Our spot checks and Cryptic's work show nothing that should be kept. If we can recruit an Admin, they could do this based on this thread. Legacypac (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I've commenced working from the back of the list and doing the CSD nominations by "month/year" grouping so as to not overflow the CSD buckets. G7 doesn't drop a talk page notice, so that's good and I've updated my twinkle preferences to not add them to my internal CSD log. Hasteur (talk) 13:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: User:BU Rob13 this situation would be a good use of your script. Delete all Draft space creations still existing by this user (maybe up to 1500 pages). Legacypac (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- yes wack everything they created in Draft space. No one has found anything yet worth keeping. We got creator consent. Legacypac (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: There are a few redirects from draftspace to different namespaces that probably need to be kept. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
- I am happy to take on the task of a bulk deletion. I cannot start immediately because my personal website where the necessary listing tool resides is currently "down". Bear with me - these pages have been there for years so there is no hurry. If you don't see progress within a month, complain bitterly. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Wonderful. I'm not looking for them, but tagging them G7 with a link to here as I happen to find them. They still represent about 20% of abandoned drafts Legacypac (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Request to remove invisible characters from pages
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 would like to start removing invisible characters from pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please provide a lot more details about this and why it is necessary. — xaosflux Talk 14:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- They can break links and citation templates, but I was sure that Yobot already did such a thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus True but I was asked to request re-approval. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Xaosflux Per CheckWiki documentation "This could be a problem inside an article.", per AutoEd documentation "These characters are hard to remove by hand because they all "invisible", but they can cause problems and unnecessarily increase the page's size.". Inside URLs, images they can break filenames and urls, etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- They can break links and citation templates, but I was sure that Yobot already did such a thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Oppose in general. No opposition for fixing things that are broken (the URLs, broken images, etc.), but I would likely oppose removing an invisible character in some other random space that isn't causing a problem (unless accompanied by another substantive fix). Edits removing invisible characters that aren't breaking anything puts this in WP:CONTEXTBOT territory. This falls under WP:COSMETICBOT and I can think of no reason to override that here. ~ Rob13Talk 15:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Per a recent discussion, I would suggest we tread carefully due to a tban that is in place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: The topic ban specifically included an exemption to discuss whether COSMETICBOT applies to Magioladitis' own bots (so long as not excessive), so there's not much danger here. In any event, since he's seeking consensus, COSMETICBOT itself is not too relevant. It can be overridden by consensus. I'm just noting that I see no reason to make an exception here for cases where things aren't broken. ~ Rob13Talk 15:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- My note was really a note to all of us more than him, to be careful so he isn't trapped into not being able to make a request. Maybe I'm over cautious. I agree, fixing things that really aren't broken seems to be unnecessary load. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- BU Rob13 This is CHECKWIKI related in case you missed that. In fact, this is CHECKWIKI error 16. I already noted that this is CHECKWIKI related in my reply above. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown I plan to fix these pages in addition to other fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown There is no tban in place about this request. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: The topic ban specifically included an exemption to discuss whether COSMETICBOT applies to Magioladitis' own bots (so long as not excessive), so there's not much danger here. In any event, since he's seeking consensus, COSMETICBOT itself is not too relevant. It can be overridden by consensus. I'm just noting that I see no reason to make an exception here for cases where things aren't broken. ~ Rob13Talk 15:34, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is this a request to get approval to submit this as a BRFA, or just edit you want to make without a bot flag using your own account? — xaosflux Talk 16:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Xaosflux My own account. I don't need to come here for my bot acccount. I can just fill out a BRFA asaik. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Magioladitis: Thanks, do you have any estimate for how many of these there are and at what edit rate you plan to run? There seem to be recent concerns from other editors that you are flooding watchlists. — xaosflux Talk 18:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Xaosflux Probably 3,000-4,000 pages since there are also bots that remove some of these. Moroever, this was one by Yobot for 7 years or so. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, is there a reason this wouldn't be appropriate work for a bot to (to avoid lots of watchlist hits)? — xaosflux Talk 18:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Xaosflux Yes, it can be done by Yobot. Some cases need manual attention though when it comes to non-breaking spaces. I will agree this is is done by Yobot and leave less than 100 edits to be done manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- So why do you want to make these thousands of edits by hand, triggering watchlist notifications, instead of doing this with a bot account? I understand the minority that will need special editing, is the problem that they can't be filtered out? — xaosflux Talk 23:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Xaosflux I can do them by bot if I asked. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Xaosflux Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 55. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- So why do you want to make these thousands of edits by hand, triggering watchlist notifications, instead of doing this with a bot account? I understand the minority that will need special editing, is the problem that they can't be filtered out? — xaosflux Talk 23:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Support- I see no harm in Magioladitis performing the requested edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Given the latest, I've lost all faith that Magioladitis gets it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken Per ArbCom I have to ask permission to do changes that do not change the visual outcome, I have no restictions to make any other changes. Connecting the two kinds of edits it's interesting.-- Magioladitis (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not connecting the "two kinds of edits", I'm connecting the one kind of behavior on your part in both discussions. To answer the question you originally posted here before you changed it, "Why did [I] expect?" - I expected an editor of your experience and length of time here, an administrator no less, to understand what they're being told, and not to Wikilawyer every goddamned thing that comes down the pike. That complaints keep coming, and that you attempt to talk your way out of them is one of your big problems, and the reason I changed my !vote here. (And, BTW, please don't send me any more sarcastic "Thanks for your edit" notifications, they are not wanted or appreciated, and, again, are an instance of un-adminlike behavior on your part.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken I appreciate any comment that will help us understand the problem and solve it. So, would you still be OK with a bot task Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 55? Is the problem the edit from my main account? Is the problem that the edit does not change the visual outcome? Would you be OK if another editor or bot peform these edits? If for example I ask someone else to do these edits, that would be OK? Thanks again and happy editing!-- Magioladitis (talk)
- That response is typical. You attempt to gaslight your way out of a discussion which is not about the technicalities of your request, but about your behavior, and your apparent inability to understand that your tether is getting thinner and thinner. You are damn near exhausting the patience of the general community, and from the recent discussions, you seem to have already run out of it in the community of your bot-running peers, the people who, one would think, would be behind you. These are the reasons I'm withdrawing my !vote (without, however, changing to "oppose", at least at this time). Do me a favor, please, and don't ping me again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Who cares about me? I want the task to be done. I don't care if this is going to be another use or a bot or software that will disallow this characters to be entered (that was my proposal to MW programmers). So support the task and find someone to do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Tentative support these are often changes that won't make very much differences, and will often be de-facto WP:COSMETICBOT, but there is an argument to be made that invisible characters are extremely editor unfriendly, and create headaches for when you're trying to fix things. If this is BRFA'd, I'd want a complete list of such characters affected, likely with each characters tested individually (this might affect non-English languages more). I'd reserve my final opinion on whether or not this is something that's actually needed after seeing what the effects would be. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- The list Regex: \u200E|\uFEFF|\u200B|\u2028|\u202A|\u202C|\u202D|\u202E|\u00AD can be removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Would those leave explicitely declared characters untouched, like in Zero-width space? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Headbomb Yes. Anything given explicitelly (by visible text or by templates) won't be touched. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Would those leave explicitely declared characters untouched, like in Zero-width space? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- The list Regex: \u200E|\uFEFF|\u200B|\u2028|\u202A|\u202C|\u202D|\u202E|\u00AD can be removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support. For one thing, they're not technically cosmetic, because when you're viewing the code, the end result is the same as what you started with. Moreover, we routinely have bots going around and doing this already at Commons (one of the more common ones is removing RTL markers from category texts), because as noted above, they can cause problems when editors don't realise that they're there. For example, run a search for "soft hyphen" at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 60. Or see the "Weird pipes display issue" section at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 102, which discusses the invisible Zero-width non-joiner character. And finally, the mere fact of Commons bots doing this long-term is a demonstration that a bot can do this; it's not a CONTEXTBOT situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: Responding only to your first sentence, please read WP:COSMETICBOT. A cosmetics-only change is defined as one which does not affect the visually-rendered result of the page (and also doesn't affect accessibility issues). This is definitely a cosemtics-only change as defined by the policy. If the community wants to make an exception in this case, it can of course do that. ~ Rob13Talk 00:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Without more detail on what is actually being proposed to be removed, and what the specific benefit is, I couldn't support. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Hchc2009: Invisible characters can cause unexpected issues. For instance, if you have a stray right-to-left marker, and you edit a page in AWB, if you press the right arrow to go right, you actually go left. But you don't know there's a right-to-left marker. Likewise, if you have a stray zero-width space, it can cause unwanted wordbreaks and copy-pasting issue. Nyttend's post above have more details on some of the specifics. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Is the argument here that invisible characters are already banned from the Wiki, and that this is simply a question of how they're removed, or that we're proposing to ban them? Or that the proposal is to remove some invisible character? Hchc2009 (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hchc2009 If possible we should replace all by the visible counter-parts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose If that many need to be done it can be done via a bot and BRFA. Otherwise any support will be used by mag to condone running a bot on his main account to make what may/or may not be purely cosmetic edits. Notice the caveats from the above editors 'can cause' not 'will cause'. Without a clearly defined list and the problems each edit causes, given his history, I suspect the reason this is here and not at BRFA is that a run removing thousands of invisible characters that may/may not cause problems would not pass. Send it to BRFA and let them decide. Its what its for. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Only in death: that... doesn't make sense. The point is to gauge the support for such a bot task. You can't say "I oppose, get bot approval" because bot approval is contingent on support for its task. Magioladitis is also required to advertise such tasks to AN when done semi-automatically. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- A BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 55) has been opened for this now. As mentioned above there may be edge cases that need manual editing, but if most edits can be done via a structured bot job that alleviates my excessive watchlist hits concern above. — xaosflux Talk 11:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Let me be blunter. BRFA is a venue specifically to vet large-scale edits that would be best suited to a BOT/Automated process. AN is a noticeboard that attracts a wide array of editors & admins who may not have knowledge of Mag's history, the contentiousness of edits like this, the 'fixes' mag is on a crusade to implement by any means possible. Any 'support' here is essentially (given Mag's unique interpretation of what is/is not allowed when making gen fixes) giving Mag carte blanche to make thousands of semi-automated (given the speed of his editing history, I heavily doubt the 'semi' there) edits of dubious usefulness from his main account. I would rather not open up the floodgates to someone who has multiple restrictions related to automated editing. So no, I oppose any attempt here to give him 'permission' to do something that would best be evaluated at BRFA. If he wants to run a bot, he can run a bot. If the condition/requirement of passing BRFA for the task is that he gain consensus here, then no, he has shown he has zero judgement in when to apply controversial edits like this, so it would still be oppose. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Only in death: BRFA is never where we assess consensus for a task. That is always kicked to another venue. In any event, this is getting a bit confused. Magioladitis, could you clarify whether you're seeking consensus for semi-automated or automated edits here? Those are rather different, and may elicit different levels of support. I'd be more likely to support a flagged bot doing this than semi-automated, although I don't know if I'd support either. ~ Rob13Talk 14:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh, if you want to be picky about the wording. BRFA is where you decide if a bot-task can go ahead. Which is the appropriate venue for this. If the decision to approve the task is reliant on the requester showing consensus exists to make the changes in the bot-task, and this is considered a valid place to gain that consensus, the answer would still be no from me as the above request is too vaguely worded and boils down to 'I want to remove invisible characters that may or may not affect the articles in some manner' and has not provided sufficient detail to show that a)they are needed, b)the articles in his list have been sufficiently identified to contain invisible characters that cause an actual problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Only in death: I think the main reason for this initially was that any semi-automated edit (bot account or main) needs to be approved via consensus here due to Magioladitis' ArbCom restriction. If you think that should be done at BRFA, you'd want to file at WP:ARCA, but the community has no direct control over venue on this. ~ Rob13Talk 14:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Well in that case, if the scope of this request is to make semi-automated edits of no demonstrated need on his main account that affect thousands of articles... the answer is still no. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Only in death: I think the main reason for this initially was that any semi-automated edit (bot account or main) needs to be approved via consensus here due to Magioladitis' ArbCom restriction. If you think that should be done at BRFA, you'd want to file at WP:ARCA, but the community has no direct control over venue on this. ~ Rob13Talk 14:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @BU Rob13: don't preclude that these could be done semi-automated, using a bot account - there is nothing wrong with that model in general and avoids flooding recent changes/watchlist. — xaosflux Talk 14:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sigh, if you want to be picky about the wording. BRFA is where you decide if a bot-task can go ahead. Which is the appropriate venue for this. If the decision to approve the task is reliant on the requester showing consensus exists to make the changes in the bot-task, and this is considered a valid place to gain that consensus, the answer would still be no from me as the above request is too vaguely worded and boils down to 'I want to remove invisible characters that may or may not affect the articles in some manner' and has not provided sufficient detail to show that a)they are needed, b)the articles in his list have been sufficiently identified to contain invisible characters that cause an actual problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- @Only in death: BRFA is never where we assess consensus for a task. That is always kicked to another venue. In any event, this is getting a bit confused. Magioladitis, could you clarify whether you're seeking consensus for semi-automated or automated edits here? Those are rather different, and may elicit different levels of support. I'd be more likely to support a flagged bot doing this than semi-automated, although I don't know if I'd support either. ~ Rob13Talk 14:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Xaosflux I would like to do this in automated way but also use my account for some cases because I would like to check some edits to avoid any mistakes. For instance, AWB can't remove an indivisible character if this is the only edit done. I don't wish to reply to RU Rob13 because he already said he'll stay away from CHECKWIKI related tasks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just for clarity (and I will not reply further on this topic), I recused from handling CHECKWIKI bot tasks as a BAG member while explicitly stating I may comment as a normal editor. I've never stated I would "stay away from CHECKWIKI related tasks". ~ Rob13Talk 23:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support Above someone suggested that invisible characters are only important when they break url, links and the like. It's worth noting that they also break searching, to varying degrees. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC).
- Oppose 3,000 – 4,000 pages? No, if this task is to be done, it should be done through a bot-flagged account. —DoRD (talk) 02:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per DoRD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken Can you please confrim that the oppose is only on the "from a normal account" part? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Confirmed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Conditional Support I think removing these invisible characters would be a positive thing, and nobody has shown that there's any potential to harm any pages. I do have concerns about using Mag's personal account, due to the Watchlist spam potential mentioned above. However, I think Yobot doing this task through BRFA at a reasonable rate (with Mag manually handling the few the need individual attention) is perfectly fine. I believe overriding COSMETICBOT is justified here. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support task, oppose implementation: I take the view that hidden characters can cause problems in urls, editing and other accessibility problems. Therefore, fixing these is a task that is a) should be done and b) suitable for a bot. However, this proposal was suggesting that this would be done on Magio's user account. Editing 3000+ pages on a user account in an automated way will clog watchlists and is far more suited for a bot task. Done sensibly on a bot account and I have no opposition to the task. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 10:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- TheMagikCow, User:The Wordsmith I can do this task from Yobot's account. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Magioladitis. We know this can be done from Yobot's account. So, are these (proposed) edits going to be done from Yobot's account (and only and exclusively so)? —Sladen (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sladen If the consensus is "bot account only" I am doing from there. If the consensus "you may also use your normal account", I'll use both ;) -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support the task. @Magioladitis:, as far as I know there is no restriction/policy that says that a bot account can't be used for some occasional 'manual' edits to supplement a bot-task (as long as they fall (strictly) under the same approved BRFA and that there is consensus for the edits). Heck, for me, if you have the necessary approvals to perform a task, and you want to use the bot account to do 4000 repetitive edits completely manual, why not? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:36, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- Commenting only on the policy generally, a bot account can be approved to do manual edits of a certain type, but a bot operator cannot merely start doing manual edits from their bot account claiming that they "supplement" an existing bot task. A bot task is approval for a specific thing, not a broad category of things (generally - there are some exceptions which would be noted in each BRFA). ~ Rob13Talk 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: Hence my '..(as long as they fall (strictly) under the same approved BRFA ..'). Basically, you do the task the bot is approved for, but check every edit manually. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
- Commenting only on the policy generally, a bot account can be approved to do manual edits of a certain type, but a bot operator cannot merely start doing manual edits from their bot account claiming that they "supplement" an existing bot task. A bot task is approval for a specific thing, not a broad category of things (generally - there are some exceptions which would be noted in each BRFA). ~ Rob13Talk 01:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Appeal my TBan (unarchived for admin closure)
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.
Half a year ago, I was TBanned from all deletion related processes. I have been told that I could apply to have my TBan lifted after 6 months, which is today. Ever since I was TBanned, I have focused my attention in improving voice actor articles by citing reliable sources, as well as placing a new template in them which encourages contributors to source their information. If I do succeed in lifting my current restrictions, I would still continue to contribute to Wikipedia by improving/writing voice actor articles (which can be viewed on my userpage), more often than AFD procedures as I believe that I am more capable in the former. I believe that I have proven that I could contribute to other areas in the encyclopedia, which was a concern when it was believed that I am too obsessed with the deletion process. I hope the community and admins will consider my appeal, and I look forward to continuing working with you all. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Why do you want the topic ban lifted? What has it prevented you from doing that would have benefited Wikipedia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- So that I may contest PRODs on articles that I care about and participate in AFD discussions, which are both currently undoable due to my TBan. Even though my main area of focus has shifted, I would still like to redeem the privileges that I once had. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- How do you expect to move forward without running into the same problems of a battleground attitude, mass nominations and rudeness [10] that got you the ban in the first place? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- As mentioned above, since my primary focus is no longer AFDing (and will no longer be if this appeal is approved), mass nominations won't be a problem as I will be spending most of my time here citing reliable sources on voice actor articles than nominating articles for deletion. I have no intention of being rude in AFDs ever again; rather, I would approach those discussions in a calmer, civil manner, I promise. This is how I plan to move forward. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to support this appeal, backed up with a reminder that any resumption of the previous behaviour will quickly result in the TBAN being replaced, perhaps alongside a block for abusive behaviour. But, that's not a threat. I'd expect the same to be applied to me; if I started mass-nominating, I'd expect to be sanctioned. What tips it into 'support', for me, is that this user has hundreds of edits since the TBAN was placed, and no blocks. There was a concern in early January that maybe the editor had violated the TBAN. Rather than become combative, the user discussed the situation. And that was early in the ban. I would encourage the user (encourage, but not require, and not request a response about) to consider what steps they will take if they find themselves heading down the wrong road again. In my experience, it helps to have a plan ahead of time to avoid getting in trouble again. --Yamla (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm tending to support too, partly because the appeal has been presented in a credible way, partly because of Yamla's reasoning, partly because I really do believe in second chances (unless it's obviously a bad idea), and partly because Sk8erPrince will be aware that any repetition of the problems that led to the ban is likely to result in its reinstatement with very little chance of being lifted again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Supporting purely out of benefit of the doubt and believing everyone deserves a 2nd chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support per improvements and acknowledging that next time, the ban will be indefinite and appeal time will be 1 year or longer. Capitals00 (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Support- AGF regarding OP's improved attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, OP blew it with their comment below. Deletion may be a necessary thing, but it's not something to celebrate. I guess their attitude hasn't really changed much at all. Thanks to TheGracefulSlick for point it out. Oppose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
:::If my attitude hasn't changed, I would have said that it wasn't Grace's business (that was actually what I said in the Tban discussion). Instead, I calmly explained my reasoning for keeping such a list. I fail to see how listing articles that I have managed to delete has anything to do with a battleground attitude or general rudeness, which were concerns when I was Tbanned. Keeping personal records doesn't mean I'm celebrating, nor does it mean that I am gloating that I am very good at the process. Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not entirely sure if I'm just making a big deal out of it but did anyone else notice Sk8er still has all the articles he has deleted listed on his userpage -- almost like they were points or victories? I think it is right to ask: Sk8erPrince why do you find it is neccessary to keep such a list of "successful" AfDs and CSDs? I'm willing to support you as long as you have the right attitude toward the deleting processes.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'll have a second go at answering that question. It's not necessary to keep that deletion list as long as there's viewable records of my AFD stats. I have removed it, so it no longer poses as a potential issue. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
::The same could be asked for listing articles that I have tremendously improved, really. As long as it's a significant achievement, I'll list it in my userpage. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Question: Would you please explain how these deleted articles are "a significant achievement", equal to that of articles you've "tremendously improved"? BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
::::They're not equal achievements. They're entirely different processes; also, at present day, I think article expansion is more contributive (at least, I have been able to contribute more effectively in that area). However, the AFD process was what I had been doing before I started getting actively involved in article contribution. Since AFD was the only way for me to contribute (that's what I thought, at least), those were the only achievements I've made, and they were significant in my POV. It is simply a personal record, nothing more (so I don't forget what I did manage to achieve). Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)*Clarification: I just found out that the TBan discussion had listed keeping my personal list of successful deletions as an issue when combined with other more immediate issues such as rudeness, combative, refusal to integrate into the community and having a battleground mentality (it should also be noted that the main concerns took up most of the OP's post and those that support placing a TBan on me, and that my personal list was only briefly mentioned in just a few sentences). I would like to take this opportunity, since Grace has pointed this out, to clarify the purpose of keeping a list. I don't deny that I was unpleasant back then, and that I was rather immature and inexperienced when dealing with AFD procedures (mass nominations without having conducted enough research is one of them). Despite that, I still managed to achieve something in the end, and keeping those AFDs as personal records helps me learn and move forward when looking back. It is part of the learning experience.Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Successful AFDs are "significant achievements"? If you had linked to the titles themselves -- perhaps as a watchlist against re-creation or as a guide for future re-creation if circumstances change -- I might have thought you had a point. But it's a list of links to the AFD pages, so serves no purpose other than that of a trophy list, like a fighter pilot painting his kills on his aircraft. --Calton | Talk 23:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Update: I just remembered that my personal AFD records could be viewed using the AFD stats tool, so I've removed the deletion list on my userpage. I don't want to give the wrong impression that I'm keeping victory lists. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I have no opinion on the Tban but since I was aware of this discussion I was surprised to see Sk8erPrince add himself to the Active AfC reviewer list which I reverted [11] Keeping a list of AfD nominations is pretty silly. They are not trophies, just spam fighting. I can see, however, putting together a list to disprove accusations of making bad AfDs. I wish Sk8erPrince all the luck. Fighting spam attracts all kinds of unwanted attention. Legacypac (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. They are not trophies, so if keeping such a list attracts unwanted (negative) attention, I'd rather just delete it off of my userpage, which I did. I mean, there's other ways of viewing my AFD stats anyway, so it's not all that necessary to keep it.
- "putting together a list to disprove accusations of making bad AfDs"
- Thank you for understanding. That was actually another reason why I put together that list. Regardless, since the list has been removed, I think it would be for the best for all of us to not dwell on how it might be concerning. Sk8erPrince (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry Sk8er but that was not a response that would give me any confidence in seeing the Tban being lifted. With all the struck comments here, I feel you are just looking for a response that appeases editors instead of one that reflects upon your current mindset.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support per Dennis Brown and Beyond My Ken. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I changed my !vote from "support" to "oppose". Given the discussion that's gone on since, I continue to think that change was the correct call. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- I'm still willing to give them a chance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- "You're a better man than I am, Dennis Brown." - Rudyard Kipling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- I doubt that. I'm just not afraid to be proven a fool. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support - per Dennis Brown.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support I think that we can give them another chance. SP has shown that they can work well with others, which was the point of the ban. --Adam in MO Talk 00:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hopeful support I think it is time to extend the rope. But there should be an explicit understanding that there will be serious consequences if the behaviour for which the TBan was imposed is demonstrated again. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
- Support - AGF on the request that seems reasonable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
- Weak support - I do have a couple of concerns but like Kudpung would be willing to dole out some AGF. Blackmane (talk) 03:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support -- provided the editor follows the AfD best practices, I don't see a reason not to give them another chance. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
NPP push
I am posting here to notify people that a push (to review articles) will occur on July 15. I invite anybody who is experienced in policy and patrolling to help. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just a note to remind people who might be requesting the New Page Reviewer right for the first time that reading the tutorial at WP:NPP before you request permission is highly encourage. Quality of patrols is emphasized over quantity. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at WT:NPR. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Need determination of consensus
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this but we've had an RFC at Talk:Monarchy of Canada for the past month. A bot has just removed the RFC template as "expired" (see [12]) but no Admin has weighed in to make a determination on whether there or not there's consensus for the proposal. I'm wondering if an uninvolved admin can take a look and make a determination? Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, Hungarian Phrasebook. You can also request a closure at WP:ANRFC if you want. --George Ho (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- BTW, what to do with the whole thread, Hungarian Phrasebook? Leave as is or erase the whole thread? Please feel free to remove my replies if you wish. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Jodie Whittaker
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an Admin please semi-protect Jodie Whittaker, who has been announced as the new doctor in Doctor Who.. loads of vandalism as a result. JMHamo (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Block review of Lopunny
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 blocked Lopunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for page move vandalism. However, I see I became aware of his vandalism because I reverted his revert of my revert of an IP's edit at 2002, so I might be considered WP:INVOLVED. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Jumping immediately to a 1 week block for vandalism? Seeing some strange back and forth movements, but not a lot to immediately jump up to 1 week block. Also where is the escalating warning. Personally I think this a bit overreaction for the actions presented. Also remember the cooldown blocks aren't appropriate either. Hasteur (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what cooldown blocks have to do with anything; this was certainly not a cooldown block. Anyway, if it had been me, since there's also a history of productive editing, I'd have probably pointedly asked them what was going on, and given them one final wakeup call before blocking. So I'd suggest unblocking, and replacing the block template with such a note. But vandalism isn't some minor infraction, it strikes at the heart of what we're trying to do here, and if this block had been placed by someone less involved with the editor, it would be on the aggressive side, but within the range of common practice. There's no need for an escalating series of blocks starting with 24 hours or anything, we block vandals indefinitely all the time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Unblocked, now. The editor has a mixture of reasonably good edits, reverting vandalism, and adding vandalism. I was actually considering that the account may have been compromised, as this is a new type of vandalism, but he self-corrected the last page move. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I was wondering the same thing, as they had some ok edits, then this vandalism, so I wondered if he was compromised (my little brother did it) or just goofing around and not realizing we take that seriously. It is a little unusual. I agree with Floq on the duration. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Unblocked, now. The editor has a mixture of reasonably good edits, reverting vandalism, and adding vandalism. I was actually considering that the account may have been compromised, as this is a new type of vandalism, but he self-corrected the last page move. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what cooldown blocks have to do with anything; this was certainly not a cooldown block. Anyway, if it had been me, since there's also a history of productive editing, I'd have probably pointedly asked them what was going on, and given them one final wakeup call before blocking. So I'd suggest unblocking, and replacing the block template with such a note. But vandalism isn't some minor infraction, it strikes at the heart of what we're trying to do here, and if this block had been placed by someone less involved with the editor, it would be on the aggressive side, but within the range of common practice. There's no need for an escalating series of blocks starting with 24 hours or anything, we block vandals indefinitely all the time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
- Based on edits since the block was undone, I've reblocked indef. This is just a returning troll (admins can look at deleted contribs). --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Final 5 Frenzy, which revolves around the pattern of page move vandalism at Portal:Current events/2016 April 14. Mz7 (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Admin inactivity
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 hope this is the right talk page to ask: is this an appropriate way to retain admin tools from an essentially non-active admin? He states here that he does a "yearly check in to retain admin flag." But as you can see from the edit -- a talk page comment expressing hostility to Wikipedia and expressing sympathy for an indef blocked editor, or this bit of thumb-your-nose nonsense to the 2016 a recent de-sysopping warning, this may not be the sort of activity that our active admin policy requires -- or is it? It seems to me to be gaming the system, but this is obviously not my area. FYI, I came across the issue when checking the indef ban on Ottawahitech. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- There are quite a few admins who log in once a year to remain 'active'. Wikipediocracy keeps track of them. The short answer is: There is no policy based reason to remove tools from an admin who is meeting the activity requirements and not abusing their tools. Unless the community decides it wants to tighten up the activity requirements to prevent this sort of behavior, nothing can be done about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- I see. Well, the editor is doing no harm, much as I disagree with his sentiments on Ottawahitech's talk page. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- (Moved from talk page)
- I'd move that the policy be changed to remove tools from sysop just logging in once a year to keep them. Far as I'm concerned that is an abuse of the system. Let them actually do something constructive with their tools, not just log in once a month. К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 21:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Whatever limit you pick, someone's going to game it. One logged action a month isn't hard at all if all you want is to keep your bit. It is onerous if you're active but mostly edit content, or if you have wildly-varying amounts of free time. —Cryptic 21:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm more concerned with admins with no logged admin actions, but who continue editing. The current state of policy does not allow for these admins to be desysopped because of admin-inactivity, as long as they keep editing as editors. See this discussion on BN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- RFC Feb 2017, and not the first time this has been discussed. As I understand that process, if an admin does let time lapse until they are desysoped, all they have to do is ask for reinstatement:re-sysopping process. Once an admin, always an admin, if you really want it badly enough to show up every couple of years. It is concerning to look at admin logs and see some who got the tools and never did much at all with them. — Maile (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Really the entire inactivity and re-sysopping procedures need to be looked at. The inactivity is far too easily gamed at the moment - but as cryptic points out, just reducing it wont stop people gaming it. Coupled with the rubber-stamp process of re-requesting it.... Likewise admins who want to take a break should not be prevented from doing so for fear of losing their tools. So some sort of comprehensive review of the entire process is in order, rather than just looking at one part of the problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm more concerned with admins with no logged admin actions, but who continue editing. The current state of policy does not allow for these admins to be desysopped because of admin-inactivity, as long as they keep editing as editors. See this discussion on BN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Whatever limit you pick, someone's going to game it. One logged action a month isn't hard at all if all you want is to keep your bit. It is onerous if you're active but mostly edit content, or if you have wildly-varying amounts of free time. —Cryptic 21:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'd move that the policy be changed to remove tools from sysop just logging in once a year to keep them. Far as I'm concerned that is an abuse of the system. Let them actually do something constructive with their tools, not just log in once a month. К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 21:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- And even if they forgot to do their token yearly edit until the day after the year had gone by, it seems very easy to get the tools back judged on the notices of people listed at WP:FORMER. There's another page somewhere (for the life of me I can't locate it at the moment) that shows of the 1,300 or so "live" admins, only 700-ish have made at least one edit/other action in a the last rolling three month spell. Admins gaming the system like this are not really here to help. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well, in the particular case raised here, Syrthiss is clearly taking the piss; but, more broadly, that's because we allow that to happen. And it would be both instinctively unfair, and smack of playing the man not the ball, to focus on the individual rather than the systematic issue. — fortunavelut luna 11:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Cool to see that my note to a friend who has had a troubled past here is interpreted as something sinister. I may wish to come back and devote time to the encyclopedia as much as I did probably before most of you even registered or made an edit. I abide by the rules and make my edit when the system notifies me that I am required to, as I have done several times over the years without comment. I protect my admin account with a strong password and two factor. So, I'm going to pull out an old saying that I hope still is the core for folks: assume good faith. Syrthiss (talk) 12:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- and Shawn is reminded that they need to inform folks when they mention them here. I mean, it even has a scary orange bar notice. I assume they just missed it. Regards. Syrthiss (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Seeing as your RfA was more than a decade ago, couple with your lack of actual contributions, I doubt you'd pass WP:ADMINACCT. See you this time next year. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's a date! Syrthiss (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- After reading your tone-deaf response to the concerns raised here, I am relieved to know you'll be gone for an entire year. Lepricavark (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Uncool. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- After reading your tone-deaf response to the concerns raised here, I am relieved to know you'll be gone for an entire year. Lepricavark (talk) 20:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's a date! Syrthiss (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Seeing as your RfA was more than a decade ago, couple with your lack of actual contributions, I doubt you'd pass WP:ADMINACCT. See you this time next year. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
As long as the community isn't interested in a sensible activity policy or community-based desysopping, there is no solution to this. Every time the activity policy is brought up, people say this causes problems so infrequently that it isn't worth changing. The subtext there is that there will be problems/gaming, and the community appears to be fine with that (at least until the problems actually appear). ~ Rob13Talk 12:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Well it's a valid point. If there is no harm caused by old admins floating by every once in a while to preserve their bit, then why do so many people worry about it? The only possible dangers I see are: (1) possibility of account hacking, and (2) that if they ever come back to more full-time adminship they may not have kept abreast of the latest standards and guidelines. If people can actually point to specific instances of these things happening, or indeed any other problem with inactive admins, then maybe there would be a stronger case for change. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- As for my part, as I just explained to Syrthiss on my user talk page, I didn't really bring it "here" -- I'd raised it on the discussion page, on the other side, where I saw no orange bar, scary or otherwise. It was moved here by a bureaucrat, no doubt correctly. Of course I realize now I should have pinged him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh and in fact, before bringing it to the ANI talk page, I'd initially raised the question at the Wikipedia talk:Administrators, before realizing it wasn't getting much attention. As a longtime veteran non-admin editor I just wanted to ask a question. I got my answer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh and on the broader issue that I inadvertently raised, I think I get the logic: we do not automatically de-sysop admins for mere inactivity. We give them the option of doing nothing and allowing that to take place. Which is fine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- We must know the % of inactive admins who become active again one day, as Syrthiss says he might. If it's even 5% it's still worth it to have a relaxed policy, I guess. Wikipedia is not paper, with no set limit, so a long list of inactive admins shouldn't be a problem either, as others have pointed out above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh and on the broader issue that I inadvertently raised, I think I get the logic: we do not automatically de-sysop admins for mere inactivity. We give them the option of doing nothing and allowing that to take place. Which is fine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh and in fact, before bringing it to the ANI talk page, I'd initially raised the question at the Wikipedia talk:Administrators, before realizing it wasn't getting much attention. As a longtime veteran non-admin editor I just wanted to ask a question. I got my answer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Msaiflodin
Can some administrator please offer a second opinion on User:Msaiflodin? This editor isn’t a Vandalism-Only Account because the editor isn’t a vandal, but the editor wastes the time of New Page Patrol by creating pages that are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. (I know that NOTHERE is meant to apply to editors. I am not sure whether this editor is here constructively.) Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Saifudsin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Msaiflodin (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Nazir Mohammad (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Saifudsin is the older account which created the same article before word for word. Nazir is another sock based on Commons contribs which has another word for word posting of that article. Both socks indeffed and master blocked 72 hours. Both socks have files at commons and the article has been created on another wiki. This is a clear COI with socks so if the master returns to the behavior then he will likely be indeffed.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Sleeper socks?
I stumbled upon HDouglas, GDouglas, JDouglas, NDouglas and MDouglas. All accounts were created the same day, within minutes of each other. Each user page is identical or near to it. I can't imagine we have five relatives that all decide to create Wikipedia accounts the same day. Each account generally has only edited their user page. I worry that after a month it's too late to get any SPI results. Am I wrong to assume there's something odd here? Chris Troutman (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC) (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)
- NDouglas has posted at BikeSally, which has similar behavior, including the comments when creating their talk page. Looks like that account has existed since 2010. Home Lander (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- HDouglas, GDouglas, JDouglas, NDouglas, MDouglas, BikeSally, and Buaidh are Technically indistinguishable, but I'm not really getting a sockpuppeting vibe here. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Do they edit from Colorado, as they all claim? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't make a habit of speaking for other people, but I'm guessing that Ks0stm would tell you that we really shouldn't say. —DoRD (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- User:Buaidh, who is included in the above group, has been on Wikipedia since 2006 and has 170,000 edits. This page suggests he might have crossed paths with User:BikeSally. I'll leave him a note that he's been mentioned here. It occurs to me that the Douglas-named accounts might all have been created in preparation for a Wikipedia-sponsored event in June 2017 near Denver. (See also Wikipedia:Meetup/Colorado/Wiknic/2017). EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- And Buaidh edits everything Colorado; I doubt there's a town or a major politician in the state whose article he's not edited. So if he's indistinguishable from them, they're definitely in Colorado. I'd be absolutely shocked if he were involved in anything untoward. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Requesting the account creator userright is the proper way to prepare for an edit-a-thon, not this. Further, why would Buaidh put stuff on the userpages if they anticipated new users that would need accounts? Even if I knew the Douglas family and they all planned to be at that event, I wouldn't create them accounts and user pages. This is either some poor thinking by Buaidh, a mistake from the CU check, or this is evidence of an attempt at socking. I'm not sure which but I didn't volunteer at WP:NPP to find stuff like this. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Account creator is for if you are creating some or all of the accounts, but it looks like all of these accounts were created by a browser that wasn't logged into an account. If you've been here 10+ years, and you want to go socking, you know not to use similar names and not to edit all the userpages; at worst, this is mildly confusing, and at best (I don't see why not to think this) it's an experienced user helping some newbies. Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Requesting the account creator userright is the proper way to prepare for an edit-a-thon, not this. Further, why would Buaidh put stuff on the userpages if they anticipated new users that would need accounts? Even if I knew the Douglas family and they all planned to be at that event, I wouldn't create them accounts and user pages. This is either some poor thinking by Buaidh, a mistake from the CU check, or this is evidence of an attempt at socking. I'm not sure which but I didn't volunteer at WP:NPP to find stuff like this. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- And Buaidh edits everything Colorado; I doubt there's a town or a major politician in the state whose article he's not edited. So if he's indistinguishable from them, they're definitely in Colorado. I'd be absolutely shocked if he were involved in anything untoward. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- User:Buaidh, who is included in the above group, has been on Wikipedia since 2006 and has 170,000 edits. This page suggests he might have crossed paths with User:BikeSally. I'll leave him a note that he's been mentioned here. It occurs to me that the Douglas-named accounts might all have been created in preparation for a Wikipedia-sponsored event in June 2017 near Denver. (See also Wikipedia:Meetup/Colorado/Wiknic/2017). EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't make a habit of speaking for other people, but I'm guessing that Ks0stm would tell you that we really shouldn't say. —DoRD (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Do they edit from Colorado, as they all claim? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Edit histories with revdelete
When doing a revision comparison, has anyone else noticed the new "Browse history" dropbox? Reason I am asking is that, if a version is revdeleted, you can still view the user name and edit summary in that dropdown box, even though said user name and edit summary have been hidden. You can't view the actual edit diff, thankfully. I presume this is a WMF issue, but... Feel free to move/forward this to a better place (it's not coming to me right now) per BEANS, and then revdelete this. It's OK, my user name and edit summaries are usually relatively safe... 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- I was unable to replicate this. Can you confirm it works when logged out or logged in to a non-administrator account? Tazerdadog (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Same here - here is a sample page Sandbox33 - the info is only showing in the slider when logged in as an account with that access (e.g. admins) @78.26: if you have more info we can get a phab case open if this is a non-admin leak. — xaosflux Talk 23:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for checking into this. Indeed, the slider does not show the information when I am logged-out. I don't have a non-admin account, so I can't check that, sorry. (I'll create one if you think it would be useful.) That said, I don't really think this should be visible to me unless I make a deliberate effort to view the material (for cause). I do not know if material suppressed by the WMF shows up. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- I just tested it with a suppressed edit summary and it shows in the browse history dropdown (but not in the normal diff), which matches with it showing RevDel'd details to an admin (I'm an Oversighter). It looks like the browse history dropdown circumvents
unhide=1
in the URL (that is, it shows everything you're entitled to see without asking for confirmation as the normal diff does). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- I just tested it with a suppressed edit summary and it shows in the browse history dropdown (but not in the normal diff), which matches with it showing RevDel'd details to an admin (I'm an Oversighter). It looks like the browse history dropdown circumvents
- Thanks for checking into this. Indeed, the slider does not show the information when I am logged-out. I don't have a non-admin account, so I can't check that, sorry. (I'll create one if you think it would be useful.) That said, I don't really think this should be visible to me unless I make a deliberate effort to view the material (for cause). I do not know if material suppressed by the WMF shows up. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 00:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Same here - here is a sample page Sandbox33 - the info is only showing in the slider when logged in as an account with that access (e.g. admins) @78.26: if you have more info we can get a phab case open if this is a non-admin leak. — xaosflux Talk 23:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
@78.26:, I think you should create a non-admin account, and confirm for yourself that it isn't a non-admin leak. Once that's done, we can (and should) have the discussion about whether the feature can be improved by forcing admins to make a deliberate effort to view RevDeleted material. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- We almost certainly should require a deliberate effort if only because some material is revdel'd because it is disruptive (e.g. material that causes certain browsers or operating systems to crash). ~ Rob13Talk 23:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- I just tried with the above sample page and it will not display the removed details to me. Home Lander (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, 78.26 here under the brand-new-shiny alternative non-admin account. I can confirm there is not a non-admin leak. So, let the discussion commence regarding ease of viewing rev-delete material for admins. Thanks everyone. Shellacked! (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would be better for admins to see the username crossed out - they could, at the same time, see who the user is and the fact that the username was deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Od Mishehu, in Preferences there's a "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" option. Primefac (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think it would be better for admins to see the username crossed out - they could, at the same time, see who the user is and the fact that the username was deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, 78.26 here under the brand-new-shiny alternative non-admin account. I can confirm there is not a non-admin leak. So, let the discussion commence regarding ease of viewing rev-delete material for admins. Thanks everyone. Shellacked! (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I just tried with the above sample page and it will not display the removed details to me. Home Lander (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Moving under the assumption that we want to have admins make a deliberate effort to view revdeleted material, what is the cleanest way to implement this? Some kind of Phabricator request? Tazerdadog (talk) 05:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Whlrradio
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.
Can I get someone to delete all the articles made by Whlrradio (talk · contribs)? They clearly seem to be promoting a band called B.E.R. and a song titled The Night Begins to Shine, using nothing but patently unreliable sources such as blogs or fanwikis. Their username also seems to be promotional in nature. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:06, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @TenPoundHammer: while you were ten-pound hammering Whlrradio's talk with all those deletion notifications, could you not have also left the mandatory notice informing them that you have raised this discussion? — fortunavelut luna 15:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
TenPoundHammer(What did I screw up now?). PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THOSE PAGES THAT I CREATED. I am not an actual radio station you can look it up, it's non existent. It was the name of my YouTube account in 2013. These pages are real people, the song is legitimate and did chart, the show which they were on, Teen Titans Go, IS REAL. PLEASE I am begging you to look them up, it's all legitimate. They are about to be in a new show on Cartoon Network and it is CRITICAL that we have Wikipedia pages for them. What should I do to fix the problem???? Please respond — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
TenPoundHammer(What did I screw up now?)Please talk with me about this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 15:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Please stop bullying us, leave us be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 15:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Whlrradio: For a start, you can calm yourself :) they will not be speedily deleted. And there's no need to shout either! — fortunavelut luna 15:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- (ec)TPH is not bullying you, but trying to be sure that the articles you created met our basic rules for notability and that you used reliable sources. Also, you keep saying "us" and "we", are you saying there are more than one of you? RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Whlrradio: For a start, you can calm yourself :) they will not be speedily deleted. And there's no need to shout either! — fortunavelut luna 15:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
RickinBaltimore (talk) I work with Warner Music and I am trying to work to create Wikipedia pages for our clients which are the members of the group, B.E.R. I do this on behalf of Frank Enea, William J. Regan, and Carl Burnett. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
What should I do to improve the reliability of my sources? Everything for The Night Begins To Shine is obtained from the internet. I am not lying about anything, and in terms of iTunes charting I could send photos of it to anyone on here who wants proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 16:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I am really struggling to make these pages stay up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 16:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
RickinBaltimore (talk) Hello, I just deleted anything regarding the song charting on iTunes on all pages for Carl Burnett, Frank Enea, and William J. Regan. That was the only thing marked wrong on those pages because iTunes charts are unreliable. That is something I absolutely did not know about. Everything else is from reliable sources. Will the pages still be deleted or will one of you reverse the motion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 16:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please calm down, as you were asked earlier, we are all volunteers and work on articles as we can. I am going to let you know, you need to read over WP:COI, as you have an admitted conflict of interest on these articles, as you said above you work with Warner Music. Each article is judged on it's own merits, and whether the subject is notable or not. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- That puts a certain slant on things, WP:PAID too. — fortunavelut luna 17:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, let it be mentioned the fact that I am not being paid to do this for the group. I am hired by an organization, not the members of the group. Remember, the subjects of this argument are musicians who have to a certain degree notability on the internet. Let me say again, they will be on a major television show airing August 1st to the 4th on the Cartoon Network where they literally are the characters. There has to be individual Wiki pages for them so there is an estabilshed place for their information. Again, I am an employee to Warner Music and am doing this for the group based on information that I have obtained not with incentive by them. I am NOT being paid. I do not see where the coi is. All of this information is obtained from the internet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 17:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Whlrradio: Thank you; you have been very clear! So you are only hired by an organisation, who pay you, to promote a band that your employer wants promoted? But you are not paid to promote the band? You need to declare your conflict of interest as a bare minimum- before we even worry about your articles. You have now involved multiple editors, and at least two adminisatrtors, and the policy is very clear: 'If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved account.' Obviously, this is something we all wish to avoid; but the proposition is not a complex one, and it sounds like you might not be listening to us? — fortunavelut luna 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Whlrradio: Please read WP:PAID - it addresses exactly this situation, in the section "Meaning of "employer, client, and affiliation"". --bonadea contributions talk 17:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I WORK FOR A RECORD COMPANY. I AM NOT PAID TO PROMOTE THE GROUP. You seem to not understand what I actually do with them. Anyways, where would you wish for me to put the information to prove that I work for them. This conflict of interest deal is ludicrous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 17:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Whlrradio: Have you actually read the link Bonadea gave you? It explains what you have just asked.Or, indeed, any of the links here? They are all useful, and not posted for our amusement. — fortunavelut luna 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also "There has to be individual Wiki pages for them so there is an estabilshed place for their information". Actually no, there doesn't. Unless they meet WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC, no they do not HAVE to have an article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Whlrradio: Have you actually read the link Bonadea gave you? It explains what you have just asked.Or, indeed, any of the links here? They are all useful, and not posted for our amusement. — fortunavelut luna 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
why won't you just let them have the page. They have some notability. I see tons of wiki articles from completely unknown people but you bother them?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whlrradio (talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- This was a good edit, at least. — fortunavelut luna 19:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Leave them be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.219.137 (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)BLOCK Whlrradio for clear insurmountable COI (Being paid for their job by record company whose client is the band), repeated "Other stuff exists" arguments in favor of this questionably notable musician, and competence issues for not reading operating documents after being pointed at them multiple times. We've wasted enough time with them. Hasteur (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Addendum: suspect 69.127.219.137 IP address is Whlrradio editing logged out which therefore invokes a WP:SOCK charge. Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- There's a SPI open: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Whlrradio. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Addendum: suspect 69.127.219.137 IP address is Whlrradio editing logged out which therefore invokes a WP:SOCK charge. Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
User wants to leave Wikipedia (I think) Comment
Maybe I'm reading User NANGA incorrectly, or been giving incorrect advice. Maybe it's a little of both. This user came up as CSD, wanting to delete their user page, and at the same time was requesting a user name change. I advised them on how to change their user name. Looks to me like they want a quick action, without having to read a lot of Wikipedia instruction (my guess). Or maybe it's all just confusing. Down at the bottom of their last post, it looks like what they really want to do is inactivate their user account ... or ... rename it (maybe). Can anyone on this board handle this request? I don't think the user wants to be referred around to read and post somewhere else. For my own information, what IS the process if a user wants to inactivate their account?— Maile (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Stop editing Wikipedia? There is no such thing as an "inactive account" other than an account that isn't editing—we can't delete an account altogether for legal reasons as it destroys the attribution for any page they've ever edited. ‑ Iridescent 21:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- per Wikipedia:Changing username#Please consider the following alternatives to a rename, we don't really rename users like that. And as they've already seen, we don't delete user talk pages. However, it's perfectly fine to blank the talk page or leave only a {{retired}} banner, and you could offer to block the account with a "User has retired and requested this account be blocked" rationale. Or if you don't like self-requested blocks I can offer to do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would like it if you made the offer. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Done (the offer, not the block). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would like it if you made the offer. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank)
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.
Recently, there has been some confusion on whether or not the 7 July 2017 UNESCO decision to list the Old Town of Hebron, specifically the Cave of the Patriarchs, as a World Heritage Site, can or cannot be listed in the main list of World Heritage Sites in Israel. I have proposed that it be listed there, while other co-editors have disagreed with me. Wikipedia policies outlined in WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) do not specifically deal with the historical/geographical aspects of sites in the West Bank and which places were, in antiquity, called by different names. For example, the geographical place known as the "Land of Israel" is also a country historically defined as such in the Midrash and Mishnah (compiled in 189 CE). Saying that a place (Hebron) is in the Land of Canaan, Judea, Palestine, the Land of Israel, the Holy Land, or whatever, is NOT necessarily a political statement, as it is a historical statement. It just so happens that the Government of Israel calls the country by its historical name. Had the Wikipedia article, "World Heritage Sites in Israel," been titled "World Heritage Sites in the State of Israel," the resentment in having Hebron or the Cave of the Patriarchs listed there may have held up, insofar as that is disputed. But, historically, there is no dispute whatsoever about its historical connections to these geographical names. If UNESCO wanted to politicize something, as in the recent case involving Hebron (see: UNESCO puts Hebron on endangered heritage list, outraging Israel), does that mean that we, on Wikipedia, must also politicize the same thing? Of course not! Please clarify Wikipedia's policy in WP:Naming conventions (West Bank) with respect to the use of geographical names used in antiquity, and which are NOT meant to offend any ethnic group, per se, but only mention its historical context.Davidbena (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think in general to avoid conflict, both categories can be added. So if there's a CAT for Palestine Heritage, you can also have one for Israel heritage, which I added. Also, in general the only people to use categories are editors involved, I don't think any reader ever uses these. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would also agree to that. The use of the category, "World Heritage Sites in Israel", is still valid with respect to the Cave of the Patriarchs and/or the Old Town of Hebron for the simple reason that its being designated as a World Heritage Site is irrelevant of the country, seeing that the identification of the place itself is undisputed, although the UNESCO board members have opted to take a political stand by not calling the country of its location "Israel," using instead the word "Palestine." The name of the country is disputed merely on political grounds, but should not have any legal bearing on making mention of the country based on its accepted use and understanding, broadly construed. By "broadly construed" I mean that "Israel" and "Palestine" are one and the same country, the one word used in place of the other by Jews and by Arabs.Davidbena (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- I disagree. UNESCO did not accidentally call it a "Palestinian World Heritage Site" — and it is not Wikipedia's place to insert itself into the controversy and revise it based on editorial POV. For example, let's conisder the argument above:
- "The name of the country is disputed merely on political grounds, but should not have any legal bearing on making mention of the country based on its accepted use and understanding, broadly construed. By "broadly construed" I mean that "Israel" and "Palestine" are one and the same country"
- "it is a historical statement. It just so happens that the Government of Israel calls the country by its historical name. Had the Wikipedia article, "World Heritage Sites in Israel," been titled "World Heritage Sites in the State of Israel," the resentment in having Hebron or the Cave of the Patriarchs listed there may have held up, insofar as that is disputed. But, historically, there is no dispute whatsoever about its historical connections to these geographical names."
- I disagree. UNESCO did not accidentally call it a "Palestinian World Heritage Site" — and it is not Wikipedia's place to insert itself into the controversy and revise it based on editorial POV. For example, let's conisder the argument above:
- Following the above logic should we also add it to "World Heritage sites in the Ottoman Empire"? Probably not right? I don't think the UNESCO classification is meant to refer to "historical territories" (in which case, we would have to add it "World Heritage sites in the Ottoman Empire" or "World Heritage sites in the Kingdom of Jerusalem" or "World Heritage sites in the Roman Empire" (since Israel was "erased from the map by the Romans" as is so often pointed out, though no maps existed at this time, aside from a stone Babylonian tablet that depicted Babylon as the center of the world.) So to the point, its fairly obvious that UNESCO doesn't classify sites based on where they existed historically, but rather where they exist in terms of modern geographical boundaries. So, no, absolutely not, and I recommend other editors become involved in this discussion to make sure Wikipedia is not used as a platform for this kind of personal advocacy. Seraphim System (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would also agree to that. The use of the category, "World Heritage Sites in Israel", is still valid with respect to the Cave of the Patriarchs and/or the Old Town of Hebron for the simple reason that its being designated as a World Heritage Site is irrelevant of the country, seeing that the identification of the place itself is undisputed, although the UNESCO board members have opted to take a political stand by not calling the country of its location "Israel," using instead the word "Palestine." The name of the country is disputed merely on political grounds, but should not have any legal bearing on making mention of the country based on its accepted use and understanding, broadly construed. By "broadly construed" I mean that "Israel" and "Palestine" are one and the same country, the one word used in place of the other by Jews and by Arabs.Davidbena (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The tag Category:World Heritage Sites in Israel was recently added to Cave of the Patriarchs. I removed it, and there is now a discussion fork on this topic underway at Talk:Cave of the Patriarchs/Archive 1#Categorisation with respect to status as World Heritage Site. Snuge purveyor (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
PROPOSAL: Since, as far as historical topography is concerned, no juridical legitimacy or anything "binding" can be ascribed to UNESCO's decision of 7 July 2017 to mention the Old Town of Hebron (the Cave of the Patriarchs) as a World Heritage Site in Palestine, anymore than its decision earlier (in 2001) to mention the fortress Masada as a World Heritage Site in Israel, as you can see here: UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Israel, although both places are located in the so-called "West Bank" captured by Israel in 1967 (or what some hope to be the future State of Palestine). UNESCO's use of nomenclature in this most recent matter is based purely upon political motives. However, in terms of Wikipedia's recognition of this unresolved border dispute, or its leaning towards any one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict, let it be resolved that we, as neutral observers, steer clear from taking any political stand, but maintain a neutral point of view, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. In consideration of which, it is here proposed that the following disclaimer be appended to the Wikipedia pages broadly construed with the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely, that an asterisk (*) be placed after the word "Israel" in the category known as "World Heritage Sites in Israel," with a reference to the effect that the proper name "Israel" is used here apolitically, that is, as a geographical/historical toponym, often used in the same sense that "Palestine" is used, and whose recognized borders may actually be disputed; or vice-versa, the proper name "Palestine" is used here apolitically, etc. This may bring some succor to this complex and troubling issue.Davidbena (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
- Madame chairwoman! Madame chairwoman! I rise to a point of order!! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- SIMPLIFIED REVISED PROPOSAL: As per Wikipedia's recognition of the unresolved border dispute between Israelis and Palestinians, or its leaning towards any one side in the Arab-Israeli conflict, let it be resolved that we, as neutral observers, steer clear from taking any political stand, but maintain a neutral point of view, in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. In consideration of which, it is here proposed that the following disclaimer be appended to the Wikipedia pages broadly construed with the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely, that an asterisk (*) be placed after the word "Israel" in the category known as "World Heritage Sites in Israel," with a reference to the effect that the proper name "Israel" is used here apolitically, that is, as a geographical/historical toponym, often used in the same sense that "Palestine" is used, and whose recognized borders may actually be disputed; or vice-versa, the proper name "Palestine" is used here apolitically, etc. This may bring some succor to this complex and troubling issue.
- My contention is that you cannot call half of the country "Palestine" and half of the country "Israel," when both toponyms were used for ONE and THE SAME country. Besides, it was the British who first proposed dividing the country in 1937, and which proposal eventually led to a war between Jews and Arabs, each trying to gain as much control of the country as possible. As far as borders are concerned, nothing has been resolved between the two parties in this dispute ---- a dispute, mind you, which I call one of the great "political intrigues" of the 21st century! Davidbena (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Your definition of NPOV is odd, to say the least. I agree with Seraphim above: we should call it what UNESCO calls it. The insertion of asterisks and argumentation is saying that we have more authority to name these sites than UNESCO does, which is patently ridiculous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: editors have been "politicizing" the situation since who-knows-when. But why do you insist on politicizing the situation when it negates Wikipedia's stated policy? As you can see here, the Israeli objection to calling regions of the country by two names - the one "Palestine" and the other "Israel" - based on political motives, or more precisely, on the now defunct 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, is what we are dealing with here. (For the 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan, see discussion here [Green Line]). Israelis view the entire country as one, but to give two separate names for two regions of the country is inherently wrong and is based on perpetuating an errant political stand taken by the British in 1937 who sought to divide the country. Moreover, the 1949 Armistice Agreement is no longer binding. While some might refuse to recognize Israel's de facto claims and hold of this territory, hoping to return to the pre-1967 border, the reality is such that the entire country is called "Israel" by the Israelis who live here. What's more, in a broader sense, the country's historical and geographical names have never changed, whether Palestine or the Land of Israel. So, I object to your claim that UNESCO has got more authority than do editors here on Wikipedia who have looked at all the facts. Are you saying that UNESCO's decision to mention Hebron as being in "Palestine" was not politically motivated? As for Wikipedia's naming conventions, the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed. My proposal is to leave the "West Bank" just as it is (since it only describes a geographical region that once divided positions held by Israel and Jordan), but to add a disclaimer there, stating to the effect that Wikipedia's use of the words "Palestine" and/or "Israel" are meant to be understood apolitically, and as purely geographical-historical terms used in antiquity. In this manner, we steer clear from politicizing the situation. Whenever editors mention "Israel" and their intent is to describe a political case involving the State of Israel, or the Government of Israel, the words "State of Israel" or "Government of Israel" should preface their editorial entry. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Your wall of text doesn't interest me in the least. Our naming convention can be simply stated: we call things by their common names whenever possible. If you're taking the position that when UNESCO names a UNESCO World Heritage Site, it doesn't create the common name for that UNESCO WOrld Heritage Site, and we should look instead to what other non-UNESCO entities call it, then your position is extremely foolish and does not deserve any serious attention. Certainly, it's not going to get any more from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I see no potential justification for Beyond My Ken's argument. "Israel" and "Palestine" are not part of UNESCO's name of the site, but only of the list UNESCO assigns it to. As List of World Heritage Sites in Israel includes sites not (yet) designated by UNESCO, but with a tentative designation by the State of Israel, it would be absurd to move a site based on UNESCO's choice of country. After all, it's a World Heritage Site, not an Israeli or Palestinian Heritage Site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight, Arthur Rubin, you see no justification for using UNESCO's name for a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- It should be remembered that UNESCO has an overwhelming Arab membership, those who may have some slight "bias" in their country designation for Hebron, a place, mind you, under Israeli control, and where Jewish towns have sprung-up as in former times, where there was once a large Jewish population before being evicted. I think that Arthur Rubin's point is clear, namely, that when institutions like UNESCO dispute with the Government of Israel who controls the site, this is where maintaining our neutrality should step-in. After all, why do we have WP:NPOV, if not to be upheld in these cases?Davidbena (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- So you're saying that the 13 Arab nations which are member states of UNESCO completely dominate the other 137 nations which are members, despite being outnumbered 10.5-to-1, and that's not to mention the 10 Associate Members? [13]. Davidbena, you're throwing a lot of baloney around, and it appears your motivation is not to uphold our naming conventions, it is to win a picayune "victory" for Israel over Palestine. That, Davidbena, is violating WP:NPOV, in case you were wondering.(And yes, Davidbena, I'd be saying precisely the same thing to an editor who was trying to win such a "victory" for Palestine over Israel. I'm actually a very strong supporter of the right of Israel to exist and to be safe within its borders, although I'm far from pleased with their policies regarding the West Bank. You see, one can criticize Israel and not be antisemitic or pro-Palestinian. I think both sides have behaved terribly, and neither has done much to help craft a solution to a terrifically complex problem.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken:, just for the record, what I meant to say is that Israel is vastly outnumbered by the Arab States in the UN and at UNESCO, who can often sway the balance in any vote.Davidbena (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- So you're saying that the 13 Arab nations which are member states of UNESCO completely dominate the other 137 nations which are members, despite being outnumbered 10.5-to-1, and that's not to mention the 10 Associate Members? [13]. Davidbena, you're throwing a lot of baloney around, and it appears your motivation is not to uphold our naming conventions, it is to win a picayune "victory" for Israel over Palestine. That, Davidbena, is violating WP:NPOV, in case you were wondering.(And yes, Davidbena, I'd be saying precisely the same thing to an editor who was trying to win such a "victory" for Palestine over Israel. I'm actually a very strong supporter of the right of Israel to exist and to be safe within its borders, although I'm far from pleased with their policies regarding the West Bank. You see, one can criticize Israel and not be antisemitic or pro-Palestinian. I think both sides have behaved terribly, and neither has done much to help craft a solution to a terrifically complex problem.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- It appears that "Palestine" is not part of UNESCO's name of the site. Even if it were, we need to decide which lists and categories it belongs in. As it stands, if Hebron were excluded, we would need to take Category:World Heritage Sites in Israel and List of World Heritage Sites in Israel out of the Category:Israel hierarchy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- The UNESCO name for the site is "Hebron/Al-Khalil Old Town" and it lists the country it is in as "Palestine". [14]. As long as "Hebron/Al-Khalil Old Town" is use as our name for the site, I don't see any real reason it can't be listed in both Israel and Palestine categories, since both claim the territory. However, the article itself should describe is as being listed as in Palestine, although the Israeli claim can be mentioned as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would like to disagree with BMK here. The WP article on Hebron indicates clearly, both in the text and in its categories, that Hebron is part of contemporary Palestine and not part of contemporary Israel (although of course it is significant to Jewish history). I don't see any reason why articles on World Heritage Sites in Hebron should be classified differently by country than is the town itself, particularly since in literally all other cases the WP lists of world heritage sites by country follow contemporary national boundaries. Newimpartial (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- How many other UNESCO World Heritage Sites are located in a place which is claimed by more than one country? (That's a serious question, I don't know and would like to find out whether this case is sui generis or not.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- BMK, in addition to the Hebron site, Battir and Church of the Nativity are in Palestine / claimed by Israel. I know there are zero World Heritage Sites in Taiwan. Unsure about other disputed areas. Snuge purveyor (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Then perhaps those two sites should be used as models for how the new site should be categorized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Looking through our encyclopaedia, I've also found that the site Chersonesus is claimed by both Ukraine and Russia. Our infobox on that page does not list a state party, but it is listed in Category:World Heritage Sites in Ukraine, as this was the original designation by UNESCO and they are maintaining it. Snuge purveyor (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- The Mughal Gardens in Kashmir are in territory claimed by India and Pakistan (but administered by India); heritage sites in Tibet would also classify as "disputed" and the declaration of the Hoh Xil region last week was particularly contentious from this point of view. Currently WP does not list the new site among the World Heritage Sites in Tibet (it is in Tibet, and straddles the border between the Tibet autonomous region and the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China). The sites in Lhasa, designated as the "Historic Ensemble of the Potala Palace", are currently listed on WP as "UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Tibet" which is a nested subcategory of "UNESCO World Heritage Sites in China", for what that's worth. As far as I know, UNESCO itself recognizes the Kashmir site as part of India and the Tibet sites as part of China. Newimpartial (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Looking through our encyclopaedia, I've also found that the site Chersonesus is claimed by both Ukraine and Russia. Our infobox on that page does not list a state party, but it is listed in Category:World Heritage Sites in Ukraine, as this was the original designation by UNESCO and they are maintaining it. Snuge purveyor (talk) 23:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. Then perhaps those two sites should be used as models for how the new site should be categorized. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- BMK, in addition to the Hebron site, Battir and Church of the Nativity are in Palestine / claimed by Israel. I know there are zero World Heritage Sites in Taiwan. Unsure about other disputed areas. Snuge purveyor (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- How many other UNESCO World Heritage Sites are located in a place which is claimed by more than one country? (That's a serious question, I don't know and would like to find out whether this case is sui generis or not.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I would like to disagree with BMK here. The WP article on Hebron indicates clearly, both in the text and in its categories, that Hebron is part of contemporary Palestine and not part of contemporary Israel (although of course it is significant to Jewish history). I don't see any reason why articles on World Heritage Sites in Hebron should be classified differently by country than is the town itself, particularly since in literally all other cases the WP lists of world heritage sites by country follow contemporary national boundaries. Newimpartial (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- The UNESCO name for the site is "Hebron/Al-Khalil Old Town" and it lists the country it is in as "Palestine". [14]. As long as "Hebron/Al-Khalil Old Town" is use as our name for the site, I don't see any real reason it can't be listed in both Israel and Palestine categories, since both claim the territory. However, the article itself should describe is as being listed as in Palestine, although the Israeli claim can be mentioned as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- It should be remembered that UNESCO has an overwhelming Arab membership, those who may have some slight "bias" in their country designation for Hebron, a place, mind you, under Israeli control, and where Jewish towns have sprung-up as in former times, where there was once a large Jewish population before being evicted. I think that Arthur Rubin's point is clear, namely, that when institutions like UNESCO dispute with the Government of Israel who controls the site, this is where maintaining our neutrality should step-in. After all, why do we have WP:NPOV, if not to be upheld in these cases?Davidbena (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight, Arthur Rubin, you see no justification for using UNESCO's name for a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Is that correct? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
- I see no potential justification for Beyond My Ken's argument. "Israel" and "Palestine" are not part of UNESCO's name of the site, but only of the list UNESCO assigns it to. As List of World Heritage Sites in Israel includes sites not (yet) designated by UNESCO, but with a tentative designation by the State of Israel, it would be absurd to move a site based on UNESCO's choice of country. After all, it's a World Heritage Site, not an Israeli or Palestinian Heritage Site. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I have posted a response to this conversation here. Snuge purveyor (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
There is falsehood being used as an argument here that must be corrected. If you look at Israel's response to the Hebron listing, for example here and here (these examples chosen by Davidbena), what you will find is statements like "the move negated the deep Jewish ties to the biblical town and its ancient shrine" and "Israel will present to the world the historical truth and the Jewish People's deep connection—of thousands of years—to Hebron" and similar. What you don't find there is a claim that Hebron lies in the modern state of Israel. That's because Israel has never taken steps to annex the site and on the contrary operates a military government there based in the international law of occupation. This is not a place which is claimed as sovereign territory by two nations, so all arguments based on that assumption have to be set aside. In summary, "World Heritage Site in Israel" is false because it is not in Israel. It would be beyond absurd to add a category that makes a claim even beyond Israel's own claim. Israel's objection to the UNESCO listing should be mentioned in the article, but we are not supposed to use categories as a way of promoting fringe opinions on a dispute. Zerotalk 10:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Zero0000:, a colleague on the Cave of the Patriarchs Talk-Page has suggested a good solution (see here), and that is to rename the category to read: List of World Heritage Sites in Disputed Territories. This seems to be the most compromising thing that we can do under the current circumstances. Anyway, my own suggestions have not gained much ground here. (As for why Israel has not "formally annexed" the Hebron region is simple to understand. The international and public outcry which would ensue after such a declaration has prevented Israel from doing it on several occasions. Does this mean that Israel does not view the country as united as one nation and one country under the banner of the political State of Israel? Of course not! Israel still sees the country as one, insisting rather on "de facto annexation" of Hebron, rather than "de jure annexation," for the reason I mentioned above). Anyway, in the spirit of compromise, can we agree to change the category to read: "World Heritage Sites in Disputed Territories"? ---Davidbena (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- David, your facts are wrong and the "compromise" is not a compromise at all but rather a surrender to the Israeli fringe position. Zerotalk 20:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Lol. Believe me that I am at ease with my conscience, knowing who is actually in control here. Nothing can be done in Hebron without the approbation of the Israeli government. As for Wikipedia, here we're trying to "paint" some civility into the overall "convoluted" picture. Let's hear what other editors have to say about the change of category to "World Heritage Sites in Disputed Territories."Davidbena (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think it would be particularly useful as a category. Seraphim System (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Lol. Believe me that I am at ease with my conscience, knowing who is actually in control here. Nothing can be done in Hebron without the approbation of the Israeli government. As for Wikipedia, here we're trying to "paint" some civility into the overall "convoluted" picture. Let's hear what other editors have to say about the change of category to "World Heritage Sites in Disputed Territories."Davidbena (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- The solution propososed just above by Davidbena is to use a new category: List of World Heritage Sites in Disputed Territories. That category would more accurately be titled
List of World Heritage Sites in Territories disputed by Wikipedia editors
. Johnuniq (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)- That could end up being a much longer list, couldn't it? If people go back to "historical" assertions of belonging for heritage sites, the whole idea of discrete territoriality would be basically out the window. Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Guys, you made me laugh here. So my suggestions, once more, have garnered no support. Fine. I have no qualms about that. Consensus is what matters here. On a lighter note, I have read where the Israeli Prime-Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, wants to build a museum near or adjacent to the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron so as to preserve the memorial of Jewish history on that site. Perhaps then we can discuss the name of the category such a museum would conjure up in our minds. Maybe, "The Israeli-built museums in Palestine." Wow, that for me would be like preserving the country's mediaeval namesake, which I'm perfectly fine with. Cheers!Davidbena (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- That could end up being a much longer list, couldn't it? If people go back to "historical" assertions of belonging for heritage sites, the whole idea of discrete territoriality would be basically out the window. Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- David, your facts are wrong and the "compromise" is not a compromise at all but rather a surrender to the Israeli fringe position. Zerotalk 20:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
A Question to Administrators: Is the use of the word "Palestine," as a "political entity," correct when used as it is in the current category, "World Heritage Sites in Palestine"? The question must be taken in consideration of the following facts: It is true that the Government of Israel has not made any "de jure" declaration of annexation with regard to Hebron, although the Israeli government has and still does place Hebron and the "West Bank" on maps that are designated entirely as "Israel," or the "State of Israel." I have read also in other places that there is actually a "de facto" annexation of these places by the Government of Israel (which sources I can provide if anyone is interested in seeing them). On a practical level, however, any authority that the Palestinian Authority might have over the Arab population of Hebron and its immediate regions has been given to it by the State of Israel, with respect to civil laws and administration, and must still coordinate with Israel over security matters based on the Oslo Accords. This means that the State of Israel is still an active player in everything that concerns life in Hebron. Land Administration of this region is still largely in the sole hands and responsibility of the Israeli Government, under the “Custodian of Absentee Property & Israel Land Authority of Judea and Samaria,” an office attached to the Israeli Ministry of Defense/Civil Administration, and which bases its jurisdiction on the "Absentee Property – Judea and Samaria Act- 59/1967." So, is it correct for us to be listing any "World Heritage Site" in Palestine (the political entity known as such), simply because UNESCO decided to do so?Davidbena (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Your "question to administrator" is not an administrator issue. Admins don't rule on content, only behavior. In fact, this entire thread is essentially a content dispute that should have been shut down long ago. I request that this thread be closed'. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- So then based purely on your recommendation that administrators are only required to intervene in behavioral issues or whenever there is misconduct of Wikipedia contributors, I am alleging here what to me seems to be a blatant "misconduct" by co-editors wishing to advocate their own political agenda, infringing upon the guidelines set in WP:SOAPBOX, insofar that they are pushing a "pro-Palestinian" ("anti-Israel") agenda, hoping to expunge the fact that the Israeli Government controls the administration of the "West Bank", and to highlight their displeasure over Israel's hold of this territory (mind you, disputed territory, based on Disputed legality of Israeli settlements). The same co-editors have insisted on using the word "Palestine" with regard to the West Bank (in the sense of a political entity, and in spite of the fact that there is no sovereign "State of Palestine"), when they should have rather steered clear from this contentious issue and used the word "West Bank" instead, just as it is outlined specifically in Wikipedia's policy, described under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank). There's no need for us, as impartial editors, to politicize this issue, hoping to influence others by calling the region by a different name. The category that now reads "World Heritage Sites in Palestine" ought to be changed to read "World Heritage Sites in the West Bank."Davidbena (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- What's more, per Wikipedia:Consensus defined, "Consensus is often confused for the attainment of a specific percentage of votes in support of something. As Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is not based on votes, but on consensus as defined above. Therefore, consensus constitutes not an inflexible number, but a range of criteria and factors which can mold to every one of the discussions on Wikipedia."Davidbena (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Looking for someone with admin rights on Simple English and or Commons
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.
My talk pages at both are under attack by a cross wiki IP troll (71.218.16.215) that I have blocked here. I tried reporting them at the Commons Vandalism noticeboard but the IP keeps deleting the report. I don't do a lot at Commons and have never set foot in Simple English until tonight. Frankly I would be more than happy to just ignore the little SOB... er creep, but I keep getting notifications which I have to look at since they may be from here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I gave him 2 weeks on commons. DMacks (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I doubt you'll find any Simple admins here, there are only 16 on the entire project, and not all of those are active. Hut 8.5 06:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I blocked the IP for 72 hours on Simple. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Hut 8.5: a few of us also edit here. I, Djsasso, and Bsadowski1 are the only ones with rights here and there so far as I'm aware. only (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help y'all. They have moved on to another wiki to continue their silliness. Rather than play wack a mole I've decided to just turn off cross wiki notifications. It's not a big deal since the only other wiki I edit even rarely is Commons. They can rant to their hearts content in an empty room. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I doubt you'll find any Simple admins here, there are only 16 on the entire project, and not all of those are active. Hut 8.5 06:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am requesting another neutral administrator who don't edit Indian political and religious articles (WP:UNINVOLVED) to mark this case as closed if they think the evidence is circumstantial and weak. The filer Capitals00 has previously caught many clever sockpuppets who were actively editing without any suspicion. Vanamonde93 has the same POV as Jionakeli. There are many sock/meat farm active n these areas as recently blocked Terabar, ProudIndian007 and Niyazib. In Vanamonde93's RFA, it was pointed out that Vanamonde supported Xtremedood's sock Calm321 --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Marvellous Spider-Man So, you want an neutral admin who doesn't edit Indian political and religious articles. What religion would you like them to practice? Do you want male or female, or is transgendered OK? Could you please indicate what race and ethnicity would be acceptable to you? What other subjects should they not edit? Are there enduring Wikipedia controversies that you would prefer they hold certain positions on?You do realize that by asking for "a neutral administrator who don't edit Indian political and religious articles" you are insulting every single admin who has ever edited in that area by accusing them of being unable to be unbiased in their close, don't you? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- No, I don't. I thought, I can't ask any specific administrator. I don't know know how many meanings could come out of a statement. No, I don't want to insult every administrator here. I respect all who does hard work here, by protecting this project and giving their time. English is not my first language. I don't even live in any English speaking country. But, I am disagreeing with Vanmaonde93's decision. Maybe I should consult English speaking people somewhere on Reference desk, before posting another comment.
- Previously, one of my statements about administrator's privacy was misunderstood. I wanted to write something else and a different meaning came out. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Also, you realize that when you accused Vanamonde93 of having not made a neutral decision in closing the SPI, and of "protecting" Jionakeli, you were accusing the wrong administrator. The SPI was closed by Vanjagenije, not Vanamonde93. [15] I think you owe everyone involved a great big apology. And, listen, you're not a newbie, you've been here a year and have 14,000 edits. If you cannot communicate in English sufficiently to accurately put across your thoughts and idea, why the hell are you editing ENGLISH Wikipedia? Wouldn't you be better off editing the Wikipedia of your native tongue? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Previously, one of my statements about administrator's privacy was misunderstood. I wanted to write something else and a different meaning came out. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you are 100% right, I am taking a big break. Sorry to Vanamonde93 and Vanjagenije. I think I also deserve to be blocked for this.--Marvellous Spider-Man 05:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- No, I disagree, that's the kind of thing editors are blocked for if they do it repeatedly and deliberately. Anyone can make a mistake once or twice. Take your break and come back refreshed -- at least that's my opinion.Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you are 100% right, I am taking a big break. Sorry to Vanamonde93 and Vanjagenije. I think I also deserve to be blocked for this.--Marvellous Spider-Man 05:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think this had to be cleared on the talk page of Vanjagenije first. I have left comments on User talk:Vanjagenije#Jionakeli. Capitals00 (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Protection of article
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 had requested for protection of President of India article as there is a lot of disruptive editing and Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. Please do the needful thanking --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 13:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Done per WP:RFPP. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Backlog
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone please handle some requests at WP:RPP? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- No pending requests for protection at this time. Samsara 03:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Linkin Park page
There's a malicious redirect embedded into the Linkin Park page right now. Redirects to something called the GNAA. Clicking anywhere on the article leads me to this page: (Redacted) Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 04:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Gags n goofs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is responsible via Template:BillboardID/L (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Resolved with help from Anna Frodesiak. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Happy to help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Resolved with help from Anna Frodesiak. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- (Sorry about the sloppy revdel here that removed the url. I was busy off-wiki at the same time in a bit of an emergency.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Here be backlogs!
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.
WP:AIV this time. Cheers. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 12:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
JuiianPE socks
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 stumbled upon these three accounts with the same name: JuiianPema, Juiianpe1, and JuiianPe. All these accounts so far have made disruptive edits even after he was warned twice. They also continue to put the wrong information up and I suspect these are sockpuppets accounts. Nuobgu (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Cherry Valley
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.
|Basically I'm getting the impression I'm 'not allowed' to edit on that page. Am I doing something wrong? 208.96.66.213 (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- For starters, you posted this at WP:AN, not WP:ANI. Second, this is a content dispute, not a behavioral issue. You raised the issue at the editor's talk page, they gave you a calm, detailed explanation with links to the relevant policies. Where you should have raised it was the article talk page at Cherry Valley massacre. And on the merits, he is correct that we generally avoid references in the lede unless it is really controversial claims. Not everything belongs in the lede, which is why we have a full article and not just a lede. What should and shouldn't be in the lede is a topic for, again, the talk page of the article, not any administration board. Admin don't decide content. You also forgot to notify the of this discussion, something that is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:11, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- The editor and I have also tangled at Talk:Jane McCrea. S/he is invited to continue discussion at my talk page, or on those article talk pages. Magic♪piano 21:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
It is a behavior-issue. You have to respect freedom of speech, and, freedom to edit in Wikipedia as long as it complies with the rules. The Wikipedia: Intro. page explicitly states rules of mentioning controversies in the 'lede.' What you're basically doing (I have a psychology credit) is common criticism/self-criticism[16] where you state your claim -- not in logical persuasion or rational thinking -- but with this is what you've done, this is how it makes me feel, this is what I want you to do. Basically, you can already tell that it's only the 'accuser' that gets to make the rules. You're just not making any solid arguments. That's --->why<--- I tried to get the administrators involved. Should I throw my credit out because you don't agree with the former sentence? No.
And another thing; you basically just-so-happened to find one of the edits on a couple different pages on teh NW campaign but, I tackled you... Nice, very nice. Well, just so you're wondering, I edited the Minisink page too. So, take a look at that later? -- for me? Thanks in advance, but I'm gonna take a break for a while. See you in a couple of week or months, I don't know. 208.96.66.213 (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is a private website, and there is no right to "freedom of speech" here. All there is, is the opportunity to improve the encyclopedia, if you follow our policies. If you don't, your edits will be reverted. If you don't discuss your edits when they are disputed, and get a consensus from other editors to keep them, they will not be accepted for the article.As for your vaunted "psychology credit", every Tom, Dick, and Harry has a psychology credit these days, and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference: you still have to follow the policies and procedures, and when you discuss disputed edits, you still have to discuss the edits themselves and not your analysis of the other editors psychology. If you continue to do that -- discuss the editor and not the edits -- I can pretty much guarantee that some admin will relieve you of the heady responsibility of editing here at all, at least until you reconsider your behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Emergency bot stop needed
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.
Several bots are changing categories from "X architecture in New York" to "X architecture in New York (state)", but they are ignoring the fact that a number of the places are located in New York City and need to be placed in "X architecture in New York City". I've oplaced stop requests on the talk page of several of these bots, but no stop has happened. These bots should be stopped until this issue can be discussed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
UAA backlog
15 reports. Could someone clear it please? Thanks, My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 09:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Bangs head against wall* How many times do editors have to see Wait Until The User Edits- but still clog the bloody board up with the likes of this and this?! Hells bells. — fortunavelut luna —Preceding undated comment added 10:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, I've never understood that proscription. If a username is a violation of policy, it is a violation whether or not the user has edited or not. The name has nothing to do with the quality of the edits, and everything to do with the Username policy -- so why are we told to wait instead of nipping the problem in the bud? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- WP:USERNAME says this: "The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product". That first example is exactly that, and a soft block at the least is needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: But in the same section it goes on to say, "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked." I've always read this, as has BMK, to mean that a user who only adopts a promotional username but doesn't engage in inappropriately promotional behaviours can't be blocked. GoldenRing (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think there needs to be clarification on that then, because I read that if a name is a violation, it's not allowed. Hence a promotional name and no edits = soft block to require a name change, promotional name and promo edits = hard block. I could be wrong though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just to clarify my position, my interpretation of the policy is the same as RickinBaltimore's, that any violation should be dealt with, even if no editing has taken place. What I was grousing about is that the actual application of the policy by admins patrolling UAA follows GoldenRing's interpretation, which I believe is inappropriate. (Nothing personal towards GoldenRing, who is simply following the ad hoc interpretation followed by most admins at UAA.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- FWIW, BMK, I also agree- and back in the day had too many submissions rejected on those grounds! Nevertheless, it's still point #7 at the very top of the WP:UAA page, so- — fortunavelut luna 16:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. Nonetheless, that's how I read the policy. The point is made again a bit further down:
- Just to clarify my position, my interpretation of the policy is the same as RickinBaltimore's, that any violation should be dealt with, even if no editing has taken place. What I was grousing about is that the actual application of the policy by admins patrolling UAA follows GoldenRing's interpretation, which I believe is inappropriate. (Nothing personal towards GoldenRing, who is simply following the ad hoc interpretation followed by most admins at UAA.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think there needs to be clarification on that then, because I read that if a name is a violation, it's not allowed. Hence a promotional name and no edits = soft block to require a name change, promotional name and promo edits = hard block. I could be wrong though. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: But in the same section it goes on to say, "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked." I've always read this, as has BMK, to mean that a user who only adopts a promotional username but doesn't engage in inappropriately promotional behaviours can't be blocked. GoldenRing (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- WP:USERNAME says this: "The following types of usernames are not permitted because they are considered promotional: Usernames that unambiguously represent the name of a company, group, institution or product". That first example is exactly that, and a soft block at the least is needed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Remember that blocking a new user is not actually something we want to do, it is something we do when it is needed to protect Wikipedia from harm. Generally, editors whose usernames are a technical or borderline violation of the Username policy should be given an opportunity to discuss the username and how they may register a new username. However, users who are reluctant to register a new username and are otherwise showing a positive history of contributions to Wikipedia should be allowed to continue editing in a positive fashion and the matter should be dropped. But this exemption does not apply to editors who have a clearly offensive username, disruptive or vandalizing edits, or edits that show a history of problematic bias or conflict of interest.
- I still don't see how you can read that to mean, "Block them on sight." GoldenRing (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing:---Can you point at promotional usernames that have turned out to be good contributors?I don't recall coming across one!Winged Blades Godric 18:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- No. But that's not exactly the point. I prefer to be careful to block accounts within policy, and I think that's what the community prefers, too. IAR is there, but I think it's to be used vanishingly rarely when it comes to blocking. If common practice is against policy, one or the other needs to change. GoldenRing (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing:---Can you point at promotional usernames that have turned out to be good contributors?I don't recall coming across one!Winged Blades Godric 18:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I still don't see how you can read that to mean, "Block them on sight." GoldenRing (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: That text you pointed out is a little misleading; what it really means is "hard blocked". We soft block promotional usernames. We hard block promotional usernames that are editing promotionally. Soft blocks just tell them to pick a new username, basically. ~ Rob13Talk 23:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: I know that's how some commonly interpret it, but it's not what it says. I'll start a discussion over at WT:U about clarifying this. GoldenRing (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Any way to search for deleted articles?
Hey all, is there any way to search for deleted articles using a wildcard or something? A sock operator (namely this guy) has created several articles on an Indian actor called Prem Khan. The original article was salted, and I'm curious if there's a way to get a list of the various circumvention attempts, i.e. articles with minor spelling/caps changes or different disambiguations. Ex: Prem Khan (indian actor), Prem Khan (Indian Actor), Prem Khan (actor), etc. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Have a Look at the item about "fuzzy search" in the middle of this month's WP:ADMINNEWS for how this might be accomplished. I haven't tried it yet, but if the feature has been enabled, it should be possible. —DoRD (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- And there you have it. —DoRD (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Signature question
Does WP:AGF and WP:NPA apply to customised signatures? I've recently come across an editor with a customised signature that attacks a certain group of editors, and doesn't show good faith towards that group. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Dealing with problematic signatures "Wikipedia's Username policy describes accepted practices and behavior in naming and operating a user account on Wikipedia that apply to both usernames and signatures" Username policy: "The following types of usernames are prohibited: Contain words or phrases that are likely to offend other contributors ... Contain or imply personal attacks or contain contentious material about living persons" If it applies to the username, it applies to the signature. — Maile (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Following further discussion at User talk:Maile66, it seems that the particular editor I had in mind has already been discussed. There are better things for me to waste my time on that pursuing this particular issue, although I am glad to learn that the general principle holds firm and is backed by policy. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's enlightening to see an admin willfully defying the requirement to notify the editor under discussion, especially when retaliating for criticism of an inappropriate administrative action. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Doesn't this count? [17] — fortunavelut luna 11:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- That just proves my point. The admin is admitting that they've violated the requirement. The applicable requirement states "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page". It doesn't say "unless you leave the editor's name/ID out", especially if you identify them in other discussions. Note, in particular, that the admin used the "noping" template in the edit you cite, which makes their intent not to notify pretty much unmistakeable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Doesn't this count? [17] — fortunavelut luna 11:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's enlightening to see an admin willfully defying the requirement to notify the editor under discussion, especially when retaliating for criticism of an inappropriate administrative action. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Following further discussion at User talk:Maile66, it seems that the particular editor I had in mind has already been discussed. There are better things for me to waste my time on that pursuing this particular issue, although I am glad to learn that the general principle holds firm and is backed by policy. Mjroots (talk) 07:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Anyone read about the guy who locked himself inside an ATM last week?
Yes, true story. I'm in a sort of virtual equivalent here. This is my doppelganger account. If someone could revert to this revision of my common.js that I was fiddling with after this VPT discussion, I assume my main account will once again have a save changes button. Maybe I'll get an honorable mention at the Wikipedia:Village stocks out of this.--Fuhghettaboutit2 (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ha! Thanks. Gonna log back in; finger's crossed.--Fuhghettaboutit2 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes! Back up. But now I'm terrified to make any further changes to it (and I still have no access to an edit summary field).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- I've deleted the common.js page entirely, so Fuhghettaboutit should be able to leave edit summaries now, even before undeleting it :-) Convenience link in case you didn't read about the ATM guy. Nyttend (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm putting in a stocks entry for this one. Absolutely priceless.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Fuhghettaboutit: You have been sentenced to the Village Stocks.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a screenshot for what this looked like? I'm curious :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- If not, we can always restore the JS to your last revision so you can make one. ;-) :D—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- If not, we can always restore the JS to your last revision so you can make one. ;-) :D—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a screenshot for what this looked like? I'm curious :-) Nyttend (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Fuhghettaboutit: You have been sentenced to the Village Stocks.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm putting in a stocks entry for this one. Absolutely priceless.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes! Back up. But now I'm terrified to make any further changes to it (and I still have no access to an edit summary field).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ha! Thanks. Gonna log back in; finger's crossed.--Fuhghettaboutit2 (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
You have been sentenced to the Village Stocks | ||
for locking yourself out of your account |
Sorry I had to do that
Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). This message was left at 03:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- You could've probably avoided the public embarrassment by turning off javascript in your browser for long enough to revert. —Cryptic 00:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Or edit at the mobile version, or add
&safemode=1
to the edit url. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Or edit at the mobile version, or add
- Thanks all. @Cryptic: Turn off javascript... hmph, should of thought of that. @PrimeHunter: Good to know about the safe mode. @Nyttend: I've screenshotted at File:No save page button.png (I'm going to delete this file later today). I'm going to undelete the js file because the lack of edit summary ability was not from there but from my common.css – not playing nice with the recent "improvements" and anyway, Cyberpower678's link at the village stocks (thanks, lol) will not work except for admins without it existing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. I always assumed that you'd undelete it quickly; this was just a temporary move to allow you to edit normally until you knew how to fix it. Had you not been an admin, I would have just reverted it somewhere, but I figured this way I could be sure of not causing more problems :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'll meekly put my hand up and confess that I recently managed to create a user javascript that set the following CSS:
body { display: none; }
The effects can be imagined. I eventually switched javascript off for long enough to fix it. I'd previously tried mobile, which didn't work for reasons I never figured out, but didn't know about safemode. GoldenRing (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)- You guys do know that modern browsers have Inspectors (press F12 usually) that allow you to change the rendering of a page on the fly? That does include removing custom CSS from the rendered page ;-) Regards SoWhy 18:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. But for reasons that escaped me at the time (and still do), I couldn't change the 'display' attribute on the body element using Chrome's developer tools. I wasn't interested enough to figure out why. GoldenRing (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Spammy socks
cooldudes.store: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Just came across MichelByard77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), JaiMiranda33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), TaylorBoothby38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), TillyMullaly5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and AntonyBouldin14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). All of them had a link to "cooldudes.store" on their, now deleted, user page. JaiMiranda33 and TillyMullaly5 created an article each, also deleted. I've also blocked them as spammers. Just a heads up in case there is more of this. And I didn't bother to notify them about this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- And NoemiCruickshank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), ThanhBourgeois0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), ArnoldRudd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), SunnyRuth93491 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and RodKuehner80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- SPI case filed and I placed it for a COIBot Poke as well to see if other IPs or accounts are involved.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 11:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- SPI case filed and I placed it for a COIBot Poke as well to see if other IPs or accounts are involved.
Note that the report is now there, and contains way more than what is listed here or at AN. I have taken the freedom to blacklist: addition; see request. New editors now will either pop up in the spam blacklist log .. or they will do something else. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Open proxies blocked along with accounts, IP ranges and more than 80 spambots. SPI case closed and this thread can probably be closed now.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- We really need to be more ready to blacklist spammed sites. Yes, we can overlook a single not-bad-faith incident, e.g. the person who adds spam once and doesn't come back; it needs to be reverted, but that's not the hardened spamming that I'm meaning. I'm talking about when you knowingly and persistently add spam: in particular, either users who sock to add spam or users who break other obvious policies to do it, especially the Matthew Woodward approach of simultaneously hoaxing and spamming by replacing dead links in citations with spam. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks all. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 01:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Data breach which left numerous users at risk
Hi, last day I found out that I was hit by a data leak of Kyril and Methodius email service along with 1.5 million people. I took many precautionary measures but I'm not feel satisfied yet so I'm here to ask all admins to lock all Wikipedia accounts that're associated with these e-posta domains below, lest they'll be hacked and used for vandalism and trolling:
- @km.ru
- @freemail.ru
- @bossmail.ru
- @boymail.ru
- @girlmail.ru
- @megabox.ru
- @safebox.ru
There even got media coverage but KM so far didn't issue any fixes or remedies yet. I feel like a girl who got cheated by husband.
As for me I'll request an indefinite self-request block for everlasting failproof safeguard.
Pavel Novikov (talk) 15:41, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Pavel Novikov: Wikipedia administrators can't lock accounts; that is reserved for m:Stewards. I also do not believe any action will be taken unless there is specific evidence of account compromise, since after all, only systems administrators can see user email addresses.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Further, only WMF employees with full database access can see email addresses. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Please have a look at the text in the box at the top of your favorite policy. Some pages may need to be purged in order to see the current state. For example, I just purged WP:V to see the effect in the "This page documents..." and "This page in a nutshell..." boxes at the top. There is a discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Dispute resolution RfC
Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which seeks to reform certain aspects of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. Biblio (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion about Arbitration Enforcement, including changing some of the sanctions admin use on articles at WP:AE, and input from other admin would be helpful. Discussion here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Backlog at CFDS
We're currently up to 301 321 341 395 categories listed at WP:CFDS, and many more are likely to be added over the next several days. It would be nice if admins other than myself (as the mass-nominator) coud help keep up with processing them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Od Mishehu: I went to have a look at this, but having never done this before, I'm not clear what needs to be done. Is it a matter of checking that I agree it meets one of the C2 criteria, waiting until it's been listed 48 hours without objection, then moving the listing from WP:CFDS to WP:CFDW#Speedy moves? GoldenRing (talk) 07:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- I did a few as well, although I'm a bit nervous I might have screwed up, so please let me know if I did anything wrong. If not, I can come back and do more :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- No screwups so far. I'm a bit worried that Cydebot is a little slow, but that's Cyde's problem, not yours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- I did a few as well, although I'm a bit nervous I might have screwed up, so please let me know if I did anything wrong. If not, I can come back and do more :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Current status: Everything that was moved to CFDW has been processed; we have 415 open requests, and many of these can be moved to CFDW. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Heads up, there's some question over some of the New York → New York (state) category moves here:Wikipedia_talk:Bot_Approvals_Group#Bot_stop_needed. Not sure if you'd have seen it, Od Mishehu, but you might want to drop by. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Rangeblock?
Can one of you investigate the feasability of a rangeblock that incorporates 223.136.147.32, 223.137.141.175, and 223.137.149.14? Favonian already blocked the last one because it was used by an LTA. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- 223.136.0.0/16 was already blocked for a year, and I have now imposed the same sanction of 223.137.0.0/16 in view of their long and faithful service to the community. Favonian (talk) 16:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Possible SNOW close?
Could an uninvolved admin take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stubbs (cat)? I'm on the losing end of this one, but I do think we have reached a point where further dragging it out no longer serves a useful purpose. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Redirect request
I was hoping an admin could create Drug Saf. and Drug Saf as redirects to Drug Safety (which I just created). I can't create either redirect as they are both on the local and/or global blacklists. Thank you. Everymorning (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, done. Killiondude (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
User talk:112.202.18.169 is on a blacklist??
Hello, I tried to welcome User talk:112.202.18.169 after they edited constructively, but was met with a notice saying the page was salted and on a global blacklist, and to use AN for help. Is there a reason this page is creation-protected? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- For some reason, TW wouldn't let me start a post, but I was able to hand welcome them. If the page is not supposed to exist, then that may need to be undone. If it is not on any blacklist, than is it an error that that message was displayed? L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Cyberpower678 goofed. Now fixed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I guess I attracted a bit of attention here. Sorry.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 03:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 03:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I guess I attracted a bit of attention here. Sorry.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 03:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Cyberpower678 goofed. Now fixed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Query re creating stubs as redirects
Quick question - is it in order to create articles as blank stubs with redirects to another article? I've come across an editor who has created multiple such stubs that are empty apart from the redirect to an existing article and several categories that the new redirect pages have been added to. It's not something I've ever seen done before, but it may be perfectly normal, so I thought I'd check before opening a discussion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's a common enough thing. The real question is, is it useful? Do readers gain by it? Often {{R to section}} is all that's needed or possible, as the narrow topic would struggle with WP:N alone. Often it might stand as a separate article, but it's more readable in conjunction with other sections.
- A bad way to do these though is to first decide to make such a redirect, come what may, then to settle for a poor "nearest" target, just to make it exist with whatever can be found there and then. Mekydro is one of these - an argument over a fuller draft article turned into a pre-emptive redirect. Yet the point about how the Mekydro works is that it's the one example of that group with the least dependence on a torque converter, now the redir target. The redirect is positively misleading. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Bastun: redirects and stubs are different things. A stub has some minimal content while a redirect does not (apart from categorization). Nothing inherently wrong with creating redirects, provided the targets are appropriate. And redirects can be categorized, with both redirect categories and article categories, although in general I think we don't want to place a multitude of very similar redirects into the same article categories. See WP:RCAT for details. older ≠ wiser 14:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, folks. To clarify, they're redirects, not stubs; the creator was using edit summaries of "Create stub as redirect", hence my wording. The redirects pages are named for historical religious figures and they redirect to an article on a now no longer existing diocese. Given WP:RCAT, they do indeed seem to be in order, but it's something I've not seen before. Thanks for enlightening me. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- Using an incorrect edit summary doesn't make the edit itself incorrect; and any name which a reader would potentially search for would be an appropriate name for a redirect, provided it's unambiguous. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, folks. To clarify, they're redirects, not stubs; the creator was using edit summaries of "Create stub as redirect", hence my wording. The redirects pages are named for historical religious figures and they redirect to an article on a now no longer existing diocese. Given WP:RCAT, they do indeed seem to be in order, but it's something I've not seen before. Thanks for enlightening me. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Procedural closing of an RfC
The RfC, filed at the Talk:Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#RfC has to be closed procedurally, since it was agreed to transfer the RfC discussion to the main page of the Syrian Civil War article in light of the existing consensus at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel- see Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#RfC. We cannot have two parallel RfC about the exact same topic and potentially different outcome. So far, the main page for topic-wide decisions on the Syrian Civil War arena has been the Syrian Civil War article and so should remain.GreyShark (dibra) 13:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
UAA backlog 2
12 names on UAA. Do clear please. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Done What backlog? RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Blocked due to having FSM signature
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.
Is it a normal Admin reaction to block a user due to having an FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) signature ? This admin (User:ارژنگ) blocked me even from editing (even blocked from editing my user talk page) due to having FSM in my signature. But concurrently this user (Sa.Vakilian) has an old signature of Sayyid has not been blocked. --IranianNationalist (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- I dunno, maybe you should ask on fawiki instead of here. This noticeboard is just for enwiki. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Tnx Jo-Jo I had a signature like this : fsmpersian flag
but about "ask on wikifa" I'm blocked from editing even my talk page too (Also I don't know what WikiFa admin is impartial to contact through Email), so unfortunately it is impossible. Anyway thank you for reply --IranianNationalist (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)- You are not blocked on the English Wikipedia, and there's nothing admins can do here to help on other Wikipedias. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately fawiki us under the control of Farsi speakers, which means they're allowed to run it as a pro-Islam and anti-Atheist/anti-Christian/anti-Jew propaganda site, and there's nothing we can do about it over here. 74.70.146.1 (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Tnx Jo-Jo I had a signature like this : fsmpersian flag
- I have no idea about how to appeal blocks on Persian Wikipedia, but, typically, once an English Wikipedia editor had exhausted all other appeals, he or she would file a complaint with the Arbitration Committee. According to m:Arbitration Committee, the Persian equivalent would be fa:ویکیپدیا:هیئت نظارت. Try that. If that doesn't work out, maybe ask for advice at User talk:Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate (I didn't ping to not interrupt your work) Thank you so much for guidance and directing me to a right way. --IranianNationalist (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- IranianNationalist looks like you were blocked due to edit warring and trolling, per the last note on your page. It doesn't look like you were blocked because of the flying spaghetti monster in your signature, which isn't there on the fa.wiki. I'm not saying for sure that's what happened, I can only tell you what was told to you on your webpage, from a sysop over there. К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 14:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please take another look to my talk page and my signature has been changed from a special point recently (previously my signature was simply IranianNationalist). There are no diff links to show editwar? or war? but to clarify it I will refer to the Fa ANB ( here ) :
- IranianNationalist looks like you were blocked due to edit warring and trolling, per the last note on your page. It doesn't look like you were blocked because of the flying spaghetti monster in your signature, which isn't there on the fa.wiki. I'm not saying for sure that's what happened, I can only tell you what was told to you on your webpage, from a sysop over there. К Ф Ƽ Ħ Speak 14:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate (I didn't ping to not interrupt your work) Thank you so much for guidance and directing me to a right way. --IranianNationalist (talk) 14:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
درود جناب سید. از آنجایی که پینگ شدم، نظر میدهم. ایشان پس از تذکر جناب ارژنگ، مبنی بر عدم استفاده از عباراتی چون لا اله الا هیولا، تعمدا در بحث خودشان و در پاسخ به جناب ارژنگ دوباره این عبارت را تکرار کردند و حتی امضایشان را نیز به این عبارت تغییر دادند. دانشنامه مطلقا جای این کارها نیست و اینجا میدان مبارزه با مسلمانان و توهین به اعتقادات آنها نیست. اگر درباره ایشان تعارض منافع نداشتم، به دلیل توهین چندباره به اعتقادات مسلمانان آن هم علی رغم تذکر مدیر ارژنگ، حساب ایشان را مسدود میکردم. مهرنگار (بحث) ۲۵ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۱۷، ساعت ۰۸:۰۳ (UTC)
- دانشنامه جای استفاده جناب Sa.Vakilian از واژه تنش برانگیز سید هم نیست در ضمن شما هم بهتر است توهین برداشت نکنید (تعصبات خودتان را تعدیل نمایید) واژههای لا و اله و الا و هیولا (هیولای اسپاگتی پرنده) همه واژههای عربی و فارسی هستند برای خدایی که من به آن باور دارم اگر جناب سید یا مهرنگار یا هر کس دیگری به سادات و خدایی دیگر باور دارند دلیل نمیشود که به باورها من به هیولا خودم توهین کنند. --لاالهالاهیولا (خوشآمدید) ۲۵ ژوئیهٔ ۲۰۱۷، ساعت ۰۸:۱۲ (UTC)
- I had been warned to not use any word about the monster and I added it to my signature then I had been blocked. --IranianNationalist (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I would translate the text by the wikifa admin مهرنگار here : "Hi Sayid, because I'm pinged I'm commenting. This user (means IranianNationalist) after receiving the warning of Mr.Arjang (ارژنگ) about not using the word La Elah Ella Hayoola (There is no god but the monster) intentionally repeated this term and even used it in his/her signature. Absolutely the encyclopedia is not a place for this actions and here is not a battlefield for war against Muslims or insult to their beliefs. If I had no conflict of interest with this user I would block him/her due to insulting Islamic beliefs ....."And My response : "The encyclopedia is not a place to use Sayid too so don't receive any insult ..." --IranianNationalist (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Improved search in deleted pages archive
During Wikimedia Hackathon 2016, the Discovery team worked on one of the items on the 2015 community wishlist, namely enabling searching the archive of deleted pages. This feature is now ready for production deployment, and will be enabled on all wikis, except Wikidata.
Right now, the feature is behind a feature flag - to use it on your wiki, please go to the Special:Undelete
page, and add &fuzzy=1
to the URL, like this: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=1. Then search for the pages you're interested in. There should be more results than before, due to using ElasticSearch indexing (via the CirrusSearch extension).
We plan to enable this improved search by default on all wikis soon (around August 1, 2017). If you have any objections to this - please raise them with the Discovery team via email or on this announcement's discussion page. Like most Mediawiki configuration parameters, the functionality can be configured per wiki. Once the improved search becomes the default, you can still access the old mode using &fuzzy=0
in the URL, like this: https://test.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AUndelete&fuzzy=0
Please note that since Special:Undelete is an admin-only feature, this search capability is also only accessible to wiki admins.
Thank you! CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Comment needed
Please comment here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Is godchecker.com blacklisted? If not, how to make it happen?
- godchecker.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Hello folks. How do we go about getting godchecker.com blacklisted from the site and all links to the site removed? It's clearly as bad as it gets (cf. this vs. our own entry, just to start). These links are doing nothing but feeding the site dollar bills while eroding our myth coverage wherever they appear. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Site comes back as 'Server doesn't exist" or "cannot load page" for me on Firefox and Explorer, respectively. Perhaps my anti-virus software is blocking it...., but yea, on that alone I'd say a blacklisting should be considered. John from Idegon (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Wow. Yes.
- Start at WP:SPAM and work down into The Pit itself at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you, I've started a thread there. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Persistent personnel attacks by user The CentreCZ
The CentreCZ - I am trying to be conciliatory towards him, as far as I can. Yet he still attacks me violently, with emphasis for his quite pro-fascist fancy.-109.183.157.199 (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
IPv6 rangeblock request
- User talk:2602:304:CDA0:C1A0:447E:FB2B:4C74:A511 was given a 31 hour for disruptive editing.[18] This disruption included BLP violations, editing "conspiracy theorist" into the lead of biographies of TV news anchors they view as too liberal.
- They responded that they could easily evade the block using another computer.[19]
- Not important, but out of a gross overabundance of generosity I gave them a polite explanation of the problems, I noted policies, and I asked them to edit more collaboratively.[20] I knew it was a hopeless case, but sometimes I'm a sucker for idealism.
- The closely related IP 2602:304:cda0:c1a0:b87c:aec2:4764:1ec8 responded on the original 2602:304:CDA0:C1A0:447E:FB2B:4C74:A511 talk page, establishing the two IPs are the same user.[21]
- A few hours before the block expired they used that second IP to evade the block by ranting on an article talk page.[22]
I then examined the 2602:304:CDA0:C1A0:* address range.[23]
I found 32 edits spanning over 9 months. I could not examine one edit made to White nationalism because it was revision deleted.[24] Every other edit is clearly from the same user. Every single edit was either immediately reverted, or removed through one or more non-revert edits. If we assume the RevDel White_nationalism edit was the same person, then they have had this address range for over 9 months and they are the only person to ever use this range.
A reverse IP lookup finds that the 2602:300::/24 range is allocated to AT&T Internet Services.[25] The 2602:304:CDA0:C1A0::/64 range is one billionth of AT&T's address space. I'm not an expert on AT&T IPv6 address assignment, but it seems very plausible that that the entire /64 range is explicitly assigned to a single AT&T user.
I propose a significantly lengthly IPv6 rangeblock on 2602:304:CDA0:C1A0::/64
Alsee (talk) 03:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, it's actually normal for ISPs to assign at a minimum a /64 block. See Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Shared and dynamic IP addresses and IPv6#Global addressing Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
AIV backlog
There are 14 reports. Please assist. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 19:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
XTools 3.0 Beta
The XTools and Community Tech teams are pleased to announce the public beta of XTools 3.0! After a year of work, we have rewritten the code for increased maintainability and stability. We have also redesigned the interface.
You are more than welcome to help us test it at xtools.wmflabs.org. We welcome your bug reports and feature requests on Phabricator (Please tag it with "tool-labs-tools-xtools").
On behalf of the XTools team, ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 05:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a bug tracker for it? On the user edit count page, the Time Card chart shows days from Monday through Sunday on the Y axis, but hovering over the bubbles shows that the data points are in the opposite order - ie a bubble at the Monday level according to the Y-axis is labelled Sunday and vice-versa. GoldenRing (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: Although I'm sure Matthew will see this report, phabricator (project
Tool-labs-tools-xtools
) is where bug reports can go -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 10:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)- @GoldenRing: Indeed, that's the correct place. If you have trouble with Phabricator, feel free to drop a note on my talk page and I can file the bug on your behalf. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 16:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: Although I'm sure Matthew will see this report, phabricator (project
- Hey, it looks super sleek! Feeding your data hunger. Great work! Mz7 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Mz7: Thank you so much! ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 19:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Hey! I'm admin worthy! Katietalk 19:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Heh KrakatoaKatie, when someone like me is only 113 points behind you, I wouldn't boast to much about it :p Mind you, it's a bit like googling yourself, wikipedia-style isn't it?! :D — fortunavelut luna 19:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- 913 of worthiness - well how about that? You could have been more worthy if you'd only created more deleted pages. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- We have a slightly-cooler one that Enterprisey adapted from ScottyWong's tool, now at [26]. Maybe Enterprisey and Matt should get together and implement one tool instead of two? :D --Izno (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'd like to see the algorithm behind this thing...pointless without it. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- The original code for AdminScore was in the old XTools, so I migrated it over 1:1. Wasn't aware there was another one.
- @Train2104: Indeed, I'll put it in our documentation. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Enterprisey's code. I think the one in XTools and the one Enterprisey put together are both adapted from Scottywong but Enterprisey has poked his since. --Izno (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I used the algorithm from Scottywong's Python code, and then added a couple more "score components". Mine is Javascript-based because I was tired of waiting a super long time for the tool to load. At the moment, the XTools version looks like it caps each component at +100. Mine just uses logarithms to make sure that going from 9 to 10 years, for example, gives you less points than going from 1 to 2 years. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'd also like to make a pass at XTools', it should not be returning consistent 100s like it currently is. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 08:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, what is this? I get a score of 946. Why do I score 46.2 for blocks when Katie gets 100, when neither of us has ever been blocked? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the number of blocks you've had, but rather the number you've administered. A wee bit confusing... Docs are at [27] if you're interested. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 19:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I notice it mentions AFD, AIV, and RFPP - has that not been implemented yet? – Train2104 (t • c) 01:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- It has, but was copied over from the old XTools. That version was implemented wrong. Bug report at T171814, fix prepared. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 06:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I notice it mentions AFD, AIV, and RFPP - has that not been implemented yet? – Train2104 (t • c) 01:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's not the number of blocks you've had, but rather the number you've administered. A wee bit confusing... Docs are at [27] if you're interested. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 19:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, what is this? I get a score of 946. Why do I score 46.2 for blocks when Katie gets 100, when neither of us has ever been blocked? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Interesting. I'd also like to make a pass at XTools', it should not be returning consistent 100s like it currently is. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 08:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I used the algorithm from Scottywong's Python code, and then added a couple more "score components". Mine is Javascript-based because I was tired of waiting a super long time for the tool to load. At the moment, the XTools version looks like it caps each component at +100. Mine just uses logarithms to make sure that going from 9 to 10 years, for example, gives you less points than going from 1 to 2 years. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- Enterprisey's code. I think the one in XTools and the one Enterprisey put together are both adapted from Scottywong but Enterprisey has poked his since. --Izno (talk) 03:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'd like to see the algorithm behind this thing...pointless without it. – Train2104 (t • c) 21:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Matthewrbowker: Not exactly something that I find urgent enough to file a bug report over, but it would be nice to have a time zone label on the time card so that people know whether it's in local or UTC. I'm sure it's in UTC, but from looking at my time card pattern that's not clear right off the bat. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Ks0stm: Thanks for the report. Go ahead and file a task anyway, as that way we can track it. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 21:42, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yuck – I miss lists of the top edited pages in each namespace in the Edit Counter – I hope they restore that functionality: I found it quite useful on occasion, esp. for remembering what pages I had visited in Draftspace... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Noted, thank you for the feedback. T171150 has been filed if you'd like to track it. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 08:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Have you tried the dedicated Top Edits tool? You can view by specific namespace, too, e.g. [28] — MusikAnimal talk 20:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be a viable workaround. Still, I'm not crazy about losing long-standing functionality from the Edit Counter, so I'd rather that the lists of the top edited pages in each namespace be restored to (the bottom of) the Edit Counter like it was before... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed it would be nice to keep the Edit Counter as a one-stop shop. However we're facing performance issues that we didn't have in the older version. In layman's terms, the old edit counter was faster but worked in a way that caused many problems, including frequent downtime. The new one is much more robust and less likely to fail, but at the cost of having to cut some corners :( One solution is to load the top edits asynchronously, which means you'll still get the data but it won't show up immediately. This should be fine considering the top edits are shown at the bottom, as you say. If someone wanted to see just those stats, they could use the dedicated Top Edits tool. I'll look into this — MusikAnimal talk 21:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be a viable workaround. Still, I'm not crazy about losing long-standing functionality from the Edit Counter, so I'd rather that the lists of the top edited pages in each namespace be restored to (the bottom of) the Edit Counter like it was before... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Have you tried the dedicated Top Edits tool? You can view by specific namespace, too, e.g. [28] — MusikAnimal talk 20:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @IJBall: Noted, thank you for the feedback. T171150 has been filed if you'd like to track it. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 08:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
There are no monthly or yearly totals. And why doesn't it list any admin actions for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: That should not be happening. Could you please file a bug report on Phabricator, including the URLs you were attempting to load? If Phabricator is a bit out of your depth, go ahead and give me all the information on my talk page and I'll transfer it. Thanks. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 07:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
not sure where this goes...
Someone please expunge the vulgar edit summaries of https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Special:Contributions/2A02:587:4109:9000:34D1:2E28:A56D:9322 --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Moving a page in line with RfC
I request to move the currently move-protected List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine --> List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel in line with the outcome of split discussion (with parallel creation of List of United Nations resolutions concerning Palestine).GreyShark (dibra) 14:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Were you experiencing some sort of technical barrier to this? Once a discussion is closed as successful, anyone may edit or move a page in line with that discussion if they don't have a technical barrier, and someone who's been active here since 2010 shouldn't be affected by the extended-confirmed protection. But in case you are having problems, I created List of United Nations resolutions concerning Palestine as a redirect to the Israel title; please replace the redirect with the split-out content. Nyttend (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- I couldn't move List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine --> List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel due to some technical reason. Wikipedia denied the move saying that I do not have sufficient permit level for this. Weird indeed.GreyShark (dibra) 17:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Oddities at CSD
The following project pages appear as nominated at CAT:SPEEDY, which they shouldn't, and I don't see any evidence they were tagged.
- WikiProject Connecticut
- WikiProject Connecticut/Article alerts
- WikiProject Connecticut/Latest article changes
- WikiProject Long Island/Article alerts
Nothing in the page histories or page logs tells me why these are on CSD. — Maile (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- I think it's due to a previous CSD tag on Cross Sound Ferry that was removed and the cache hasn't updated yet. All of the pages you listed have this under the heading for Cross Sound Ferry. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- That was quick. Hopefuly, nobody will delete these before the cache updates. — Maile (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) An editor accidentally transcluded {{db-inc}} on Cross Sound Ferry, so projects connected with the page have been affected. Should be able to fix it shortly. Alex ShihTalk 18:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- That was quick. Hopefuly, nobody will delete these before the cache updates. — Maile (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Possible WP:G4
An article titled deleted Eric Daimler was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Daimler by Kurykh. A article with the same name has been (re)created, but I'm not sure if it's the same article or a different article with the same name. Should this be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:G4? I'm posting here because the deleting admin has not been active for a couple of months and may be on a Wikibreak or otherwise not editing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).
- Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
- Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem
- Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
- A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
- An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.
- LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
- The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.
ClueBot III is malfunctioning
Heads up that ClueBot III is still malfunctioning since my report two days ago. TheDragonFire (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- Actually it looks like it has been malfunctioning this way for a while now, making similarly bizarre edits to other indexes. Another example I found was ClueBot constantly replacing Presidentman's index with the ClueBot Commons', and has been alternating between the two for around 7 years now. --George AKA Caliburn · (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 13:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- This is still happening, and I've additionally found another bug where placing whitespace before the format parameter causes that whitespace to be included in the page title (i.e.
format = Y/m
causes/ 2017/07
to be created andformat=Y/m
causes/2017/07
to be created). I've emailed the maintainers, but I haven't had a response. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- This is still happening, and I've additionally found another bug where placing whitespace before the format parameter causes that whitespace to be included in the page title (i.e.
Rangeblock Calculator
I have written a new rangeblock calculator: toollabs:ip-range-calc. I'd like to invite everyone to test it out. Please let me know what you think and/or if you find any bugs. Thanks, FASTILY 08:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Fastily: You may also be interested in phab:T145912. --Izno (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Prodecural question
Where do I find instructions on how to respond to an unblock request? I see the Category:Requests for unblock, but I don't see a procedure that says how to handle these. Are there only certain admins who are authorized to respond to unblock requests? I see the unblock requests on the user pages through the Unblock Ticket Request System, which I'm guessing takes access to that system. But I don't understand how the others get handled. I just see a template on the user page where they've made the request. Where is the actual process instruction page? Or is there one? — Maile (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I just go to CAT:UNBLOCK and have a look to see if there are any I can resolve. In each unblock request, there is a collapsed "Administrator use only" section; uncollapse that to get template accept / decline boilerplate you can copy over the original unblock request appropriately, adding in your response. Username unblocks have a slightly different format to "regular" blocks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Issue on Submit FotoJet Craft
Hi Wikipedia group,
I've used your portal to submit my draft. Unluckily I got this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template%3AAfc+preload%2Fdraft&editintro=Template%3AAfC+draft+editintro&summary=&nosummary=&minor=&title=Draft%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDraft%3AFotoJet&create=Create+new+article+draft
Would appreciate if you can manually check my draft and process it:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:FotoJet
Thanks,Emily — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilyFJ (talk • contribs) 11:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- You've tried to name your draft "Draft:Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:FotoJet". You want to put just "FotoJet" in the "title" field. Try that and see what you get, and if you're still having issues, let us know. (For future reference, you can use {{help me}} on your talk page to ask for help. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
CAT:CSD
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.
Anyone know why Suzan Kahramaner is in CAT:CSD? GoldenRing (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Template:PhDTree had a CSD tag, and that template is transcluded on to Suzan Kahramaner; the caches haven't been refreshed yet, so the CSD tag still persists through the transclusion, even though it has since been removed from the template. I've purged the caches, so it should be out of the category now. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. GoldenRing (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Administrator block of Vagina
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 never run into a page that can't be edited - even the main page. There is a discussion and an edit war regarding this article and it doesn't involve me. Block those who are involved. A page should not be blocked because a couple of editors have a disagreement. I have content to contribute on the topic. This is an encyclopedia anyone can edit-not anymore.
- Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Barbara (WVS): Full protections is a fairly standard response to edit warring. If you want to make edits, you can either propose them at the article talk page or request a reduction in the protection level at WP:UNPROTECT. I'm not sure this one is likely to be reduced, though. It's set to expire on 9 August. By the way, try editing the main page - it is also the subject of full protection. GoldenRing (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hi Barbara (WVS), if you click "view source", you may then click the blue bar that says "Submit an edit request", and an administrator will review your request and make the edit if appropriate. The article is locked for one week because of an edit-war; the locking gives the community time to come to a consensus. Remember that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and that that privilege may be revoked if administrators determine that is best for any reason. Softlavender (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- I understand the process and appreciate your kind reply. What you have written makes sense. What I am proposing is that the decision of the blocking administrator be reversed. I understand the reason for the block. I would like to consider this something similar to the block of a user. This decision needs more justification and consensus rather something like 'it is appropriate because an administrator believes it to be appropriate'. If we block every page where two or more editors are having a discussion on the talk page over content, we would shut down a lot more than this one article. My edits are notoriously appropriate. To suggest that an edit has to be approved by an administrator...well just doesn't seem right. Best Regards, ✐ ✉ 12:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Barbara (WVS): I think you're exaggerating things a little bit here. Articles "where two or more editors are having a discussion on the talk page over content" are not generally protected. It's only when the editors start engaging in an edit war, trying to force their particular POV on the article, that the page might (yes, might) be protected. In this case (as Doc James explained below), there was an ongoing slow edit war that was causing disruption, so the page was protected for a short time. This is not unusual, and others have already explained how you can propose any changes you wish made. Or, if you don't feel like doing that, you will need to wait for the protection to expire. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to challenge Doc James' protection of the article, the first step is to ask him about it on his talk page. I see you have done this, so just wait until he next logs on to reply. If you're still unhappy, you can go to WP:RFPP and request unprotection. I personally think 10 days' full protection is overkill, and I would normally not go for more than 24 hours as it shuts out completely uninvolved editors like yourself. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- There was a slowly moving edit war on the article in question so full protection is not unreasonable. Not sure what you mean by "I've never run into a page that can't be edited - even the main page." User:Barbara (WVS) as you are not able to edit the main page not sure what you mean? Also you have not edited this article in more than 5,000 edits (and have only ever made one edit to the article). Join the talk page discussion.
- The back and forth on that page had been ongoing for 10 days already. I have shortened the full protection to a further three days.
- This by the way is not correct "an edit has to be approved by an administrator". An edit when an article is fully protected needs to be approved by community consensus not an admin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- In all sincerity I very much appreciate the ability and opportunity to 'voice' my objections to the block. I am satisfied with the block being reduced - thank you. About the ability to edit the main page, of course I need to admit that you must be correct and I must have assumed that since there is an edit tab above the page, that it could actually be edited. I have also read about an incident when the main page was deleted, much to the embarrassment of the editor who did this unintentionally. So I put 1 and 1 together and made 3. Just because there is a tab for editing and just because some editor accidentally deleted the main page one time, doesn't mean that can be accomplished now. I am wrong and you all are right. The content I am planning on inserting into the article is connected to pain management in childbirth which is an article created a short time ago. Did you really count the edits between one and the other? Why? It doesn't really matter except I can't imagine ever needing having to do something like that. I must think differently than others. I think your decisions were fair, kind and reasonable and appreciate the time you put into answering my concern. The Very Best of Regards, ✐ ✉ 17:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for your contribution Barbara! Alex ShihTalk 18:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Barbara (WVS), in this case, an editor was repeatedly adding WP:Synthesis to the article and I was rightly reverting and trying to work the matter out on the article talk page. The other editor had ignored the fact that I'd taken the matter to the talk page and reverted again anyway. My July 21, 2017 edit was not a revert of the editor. I'd only reverted twice, and was not going to revert a third time or violate WP:3RR. Blocking me would not have been the right move. Doc was clearly in the right to protect the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Correction: My July 21, 2017 edit was partly a revert, but I otherwise accepted the edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- I understand the process and appreciate your kind reply. What you have written makes sense. What I am proposing is that the decision of the blocking administrator be reversed. I understand the reason for the block. I would like to consider this something similar to the block of a user. This decision needs more justification and consensus rather something like 'it is appropriate because an administrator believes it to be appropriate'. If we block every page where two or more editors are having a discussion on the talk page over content, we would shut down a lot more than this one article. My edits are notoriously appropriate. To suggest that an edit has to be approved by an administrator...well just doesn't seem right. Best Regards, ✐ ✉ 12:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Before you do any blocking or protecting, be sure you have an OB/GYN on speed dial. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- LOL. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
G13 Update
Closure contested, discussion ongoing Mdann52 (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Need one more editor to volunteer joint closure on referrer info RfC discussion
We had Winged Blades of Godric and Cyberpower678 declaring themselves last month as volunteers to do the joint closure on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy. However, the RfC discussion was relisted for an extended time. Its proposer Guy Macon, who can explain more than I, has concerns about WMF staff trying to influence the WMF into reconsidering the abidance to the consensus. Therefore, I believe that more volunteers, including uninvolved but experienced administrators, are needed to do the joint closures, especially to "address the question of whether Wikipedia or the WMF has the final authority on what referrer information we send
," quote from Guy Macon. Any more volunteers, like a third and/or fourth closer? Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC); see newer comments below. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- I find this in bad faith. Everybody and their brother knows that a strong majority of editors here support having no referrer information; canvassing to have "four closer" admins is a blatant attempt to over-emphasize the view of the English Wikipedia editors on a topic that they may not have a binding opinion on. To use excessively-legal terminology, consensus here can't over-turn jurisdictional issues. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
- George, this is process for process sake. You could have 1 closer or 100, it will make no difference to the outcome. The consensus is clear and could be written up in 5 minutes by anyone with even a basic grasp of Wikipedia policy. That the result is not actually binding on the WMF is completely irrelevant to determining the outcome. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I know that the majority supports one of the options. The joint closure was requester previously one month ago by Guy Macon himself. I'll talk further at one of talk pages. --George Ho (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I commented at the RfC discussion. --George Ho (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
After discussion with power~enwiki, I have struck out the comment that would imply "canvassing", so here's the more neutral request: "Though I welcome a fourth closer, if three total closers should suffice, then I can ask for one more closer, i.e. the third closer. That's it." I also modified the header to avoid what's considered canvassing. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
"Canvassing" accusation against Guy Macon is withdrawn and then disregarded. --George Ho (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
For an update, the discussion is summarized by one closer. I must say that I agree with the outcome. Also, I struck out the request. --George Ho (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Unban proposal for 'CarryMinati' from blacklist
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.
CarryMinati has been identified by YouTube as the 2nd top independent Indian creator in 2016. (http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/youtube-rewind-2016-google-lists-top-india-and-global-trending-videos-1635664)
He has 1.5 million subscribers which is a notable amount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X4rid (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wrong venue. Please go to WP:RFRPL to request a reduction in page protection. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
ANI reform RfC
Hello. You are invited to comment on this ANI reform RfC. Please do not comment in this thread; post all comments on the RfC pages. Thanks, Biblio (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Giovanni Sacheli
Can I have a second opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giovanni Sacheli and Giovanni Sacheli? I just closed the AfD as "delete" given that no good indication of notability was given, and @Sentorino: claimed that I paid a wikipedia editor a lot of money to create the page, because he proposed the deal to me, telling me also that the page will remain alive
. This looks like a scam for money to me, or something along similar lines, considering that one cannot really guarantee that an article will stay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- You made a good close (the !voters are certainly not SPAs), and caveat emptor and all that. It might be worth contacting the creator to see if we can track down the exact details of this paid editing, but as far as the AFD itself goes I don't see anything more to do. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Edit war at WP:AN3
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.
On Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring there appears to be an edit war between User:Doorzki and User:Morty C-137, in addition to drama between those two editors on multiple other pages. Can an admin please put an end to this? Power~enwiki (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oh good heavens. There's nothing to "put an end" to; there's a person who's repeatedly deleting the comments of others and deleting evidence from a complaint. Morty C-137 (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out: this is the behavior that's been going on nonstop there. Doorzi has been routinely deleting other users' comments, as well as deleting the actual evidence Diffs showing that they have far-beyond-violated 3RR on multiple pages. Morty C-137 (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Doorzki has been blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out: this is the behavior that's been going on nonstop there. Doorzi has been routinely deleting other users' comments, as well as deleting the actual evidence Diffs showing that they have far-beyond-violated 3RR on multiple pages. Morty C-137 (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could a sysop with a spare moment swing by AIV and handle some requests. In particular one IP has now wasted an entire page of the edit history at Canada's Wonderland. Home Lander (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks to everyone who responded. Home Lander (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
CBAN Clarification request
CBAN overturned by community consensus. Nothing more to do here. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 18:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
See WP:ANI#Consensus to enact, as amended Proposed editing restriction and user talk:Arthur Rubin.I proposed a CBAN for Arthur Rubin which gained consensus and was enacted. The enacting administrator, GoldenRing seems to have misinterpreted the intent of the duration of the CBAN.
I wrote the proposal with the intent that the CBAN was to be of a limited duration. It would expire either at ARBCOM's rejection or conclusion of a case against Arthur Rubin. GoldenRing seems to think that the CBAN is just an indefinite one, and there is not consensus for a set of circumstances that will mean the CBAN expires. He has suggested that the matter is brought up here for clarification. Other editors have said at ANI that they interpreted the ban to be that which I intended. I wrote the proposal how I did so that we would not need to return to the drama-fest that is ANI to get the CBAN lifted. Either ARBCOM rejects the case and the CBAN ends (looking unlikely) or ARBCOM accepts the case, it is concluded and Arthur Rubin is then free to edit, subject to whatever sanctions (if any) are imposed by ARBCOM.
So, do we all agree that the CBAN has a defined set of conditions under which it expires? Mjroots (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Arthur Rubin has been notified, GoldenRing has been notified. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Mjroots, I notice you didn't actually ask GR whether they would be willing to amend their close. While there is no end date specifically listed (and I can see how that could be interpreted as "indefinitely"), that's an easy two-minute job to update, given the perfectly valid concerns you raise here. If GR is willing to make that change, I'd say this is not an AN matter. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: - GR has already stated at ANI and on his talk page that he's unwilling to amend his stance (from his talk page If you don't like how I closed the discussion, take it to AN for review). It seems that it is not worth pressing the issue with him, although he did state at ANI I won't vociferously oppose changing it if the community disagrees. Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- My interpretation of that that thread was that the "posting at ANI" part was under discussion, not the timeframe, but whatever. We're here now, we'll see what GR has to say about it. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Primefac: - GR has already stated at ANI and on his talk page that he's unwilling to amend his stance (from his talk page If you don't like how I closed the discussion, take it to AN for review). It seems that it is not worth pressing the issue with him, although he did state at ANI I won't vociferously oppose changing it if the community disagrees. Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think the close is best as is. I think defining a set of circumstances under which the ban will end automatically in a way that can't be gamed or wikilawyered adds too much complexity and I don't see the problem with Arthur Rubin coming back to the community to have the ban lifted. Supposing that ARB were to reject the case, I think having the ban end automatically at that point would, in fact, cause considerably more drama than any request to have the ban lifted would — in any event, no less than a request to have the ban lifted, especially if that request came after a bit of time. I thought this seemed sensible and I thought, mostly from the way it was formatted, that it was what Mjroots was suggesting. Obviously I misread their intentions. I will not kick up a fuss if the community decides to to override my close on this point. GoldenRing (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: Your opinion of what should have been proposed an agreed upon is irrelevant, what was proposed and agreed upon is that the restriction would automatically end under the stated conditions. Paul August ☎ 22:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- This is the most salient point here. GoldenRing, I don't mean for this to sound insulting or inflammatory, but I just don't know any other way to say it and emphasize the central point here: how can you have risen to the position of admin and clerk to ArbCom utilizing such a mistaken understanding of what the role of a closer is in a WP:CONSENSUS discussion on this project? Your job in that circumstance is to summarize the approach endorsed by the community, not construct a new one, no matter how much more well-advised you believe (or even know!) your approach will be. Mjroots' proposal was very explicit as to the terms of the ban, terms which were endorsed by all of the community members who !voted in that discussion, but which you stripped out of the final sanction with your close, under your own onus. That's just not how the process of consensus works on this project.
- @GoldenRing: Your opinion of what should have been proposed an agreed upon is irrelevant, what was proposed and agreed upon is that the restriction would automatically end under the stated conditions. Paul August ☎ 22:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nor is there any significant amount of ambiguity here: Mjroots original proposal was perfectly clear about the length of the ban being !voted for. As if that weren't enough, all five of the editors commenting here have been clear that they !voted believing they were discussing/endorsing a proposal to ban Arthur until the conclusion of ArbCom case, and were not supporting an indefinite community ban under those circumstances. Not one contributor has stepped forward to say that they understood the proposal to to be consistent with the sanction you declared in your close. I'm sorry, but neither you, nor any user of this community (not an admin, not even an Arb) is empowered under our guidelines to unilaterally upgrade a sanction to an indefinite community ban without absolutely clear community consensus for that action. That is well beyond your authority to do. This is, in my opinion, a more or less WP:SNOW issue, and though I believe your mistake to have been a good faith one, I implore you to listen to the concerns of the other editors here--the very same editors whose opinions you claim to be representing with that close. The close has to be amended to be consistent with the proposal !voted on. Snow let's rap 00:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Snow Rise: all that experience that Golden Ring does not have would have came in handy for situations like this. To answer your question, enough !voters at his RfA thought adminship is no big deal and experience is not a necessity; here is the end result. I had my doubts about GR but I am hopeful he will learn from this mistake and take the time to brush up on WP:CLOSE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well, let's not get too much into the weeds of opinions on a separate matter. GR has shown some signs of softening his stance here in his last post above, due to community response. Perhaps the additional opinions which have been lodged since will be sufficient to change his perspective on the best solution here. Snow let's rap 01:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Snow Rise: all that experience that Golden Ring does not have would have came in handy for situations like this. To answer your question, enough !voters at his RfA thought adminship is no big deal and experience is not a necessity; here is the end result. I had my doubts about GR but I am hopeful he will learn from this mistake and take the time to brush up on WP:CLOSE.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nor is there any significant amount of ambiguity here: Mjroots original proposal was perfectly clear about the length of the ban being !voted for. As if that weren't enough, all five of the editors commenting here have been clear that they !voted believing they were discussing/endorsing a proposal to ban Arthur until the conclusion of ArbCom case, and were not supporting an indefinite community ban under those circumstances. Not one contributor has stepped forward to say that they understood the proposal to to be consistent with the sanction you declared in your close. I'm sorry, but neither you, nor any user of this community (not an admin, not even an Arb) is empowered under our guidelines to unilaterally upgrade a sanction to an indefinite community ban without absolutely clear community consensus for that action. That is well beyond your authority to do. This is, in my opinion, a more or less WP:SNOW issue, and though I believe your mistake to have been a good faith one, I implore you to listen to the concerns of the other editors here--the very same editors whose opinions you claim to be representing with that close. The close has to be amended to be consistent with the proposal !voted on. Snow let's rap 00:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I think the comment by Sladen has it spot on. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I've requested the CBAN to be removed at ANI. It's the only logical and reasonable thing to do, especially now we're in Arbcom territory (oooooh!). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- My support was for the specific (and explicit) purpose of compelling Arthur Rubin to participate in the Arbcom case, and in supporting I was explicitly supporting the proposal as written, which included
The restriction to be lifted after he has provided diffs and the ARBCOM case is either rejected or concluded
, and not the closing admin choosing to cherry-pick those parts of the proposal he liked rather than the whole thing. Had that section not been included, I'd have vehemently opposed the proposal altogether. There are (rare) occasions where "indefinite as in until you come grovelling" is appropriate, when it's felt necessary that the editor explicitly explain that they understand a particular issue that needs to be addressed before they'll be trusted again, but this was certainly not one of those occasions. Given that Arthur Rubin is now participating in the Arbcom case, I don't consider keeping this topic ban in place in any form is serving any useful purpose, and would strongly suggest that it be lifted altogether—Arbcom are perfectly capable of throwing him under the bus if they feel it's justified after they've had the chance to consider his take on what happened here. I assume even Arthur Rubin's harshest opponents will concede that he's vanishingly unlikely to cause any disruption while the case is ongoing and that if he does so he's signing his own resignation from Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 20:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)- Already done that, both here and at ANI. Fair's fair. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- FWIW I supported and read it as "He's restricted from editing anything other than Arbcom and if the Arbcom is accepted then he remains restricted and if it's declined then he can freely edit again" - If it was an indefinite thing then I would've opposed ..... I don't really see the logic in him remaining restricted if the Arbcom case was declined as that wouldn't really make any sense, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes of course (sigh) the proposal that was presented, discussed, and agreed to was that restriction ends with the rejection or conclusion of the ARBCOM case. Paul August ☎ 21:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- Paul August the only people now holding up Rubin's ability to contribute further to all these mathematical articles you state he's so fundamental to is to accept the case formally are Arbcom. What I do note is that prior to Rubin's CBAN he's done little more than revert additions to recent year articles, so I'm not sure how much we're missing his massive input otherwise. But in any and all cases, he should be enabled to edit since we're now at the point of no return regarding the Arbcom case. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, please don't misrepresent what I said, which was that "he is an expert editor who has made many productive contribution to our mathematics content". Paul August ☎ 13:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sotty, I thought you were somehow implying that Rubin's restriction was somehow preventing him from making some serious contributions. Of course, excellent article writing is no excuse for ignoring AGF and ADMINACCT. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, please don't misrepresent what I said, which was that "he is an expert editor who has made many productive contribution to our mathematics content". Paul August ☎ 13:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- The close should be overturned for misreading consensus - the closing admin can't make a c-ban broader than supported as they purport to have done here, especially an indef. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Overturn to be temporary, but under protest that this exists at all. The issue at stake is admin status, so the appropriate ban that the community should have enacted was a ban on use of admin tools pending the case. Issues related to policies applying only to admins (ADMINACCT, etc.) should not affect whether someone can edit (except in cases where they suggest further disruption is likely even without tools - blatant vandalism with tools, etc). This is like banning someone from editing because they misused rollback. ~ Rob13Talk 08:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@GoldenRing: Since you agree above that you "misread" things, the appropriate thing for you to do would be to amend your close. There is no need to wait for the community to override your close. Paul August ☎ 09:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Paul August: Yes. Having slept on this (again), you are right. I clearly mis-read consensus and I will amend my close accordingly. GoldenRing (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: Thank you. Paul August ☎ 10:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Just as a little note, there is very clear consensus to just outright overturn the editing restriction. I'd close it myself, but I'm not an admin, so it would be helpful if one can do so, preferably sooner than later. SkyWarrior 23:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Request
Could an uninvolved admin please close and implement TRM's proposal to lift the community ban placed on Arthur Rubin? [29] At this time it has 18 supports and no opposes and seems to be a prime candidate for a SNOW close. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- That's pretty good consensus to me and it appears to be snowing in August. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone fix up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Monteleone.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Done Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Possible compromised account?
I just blocked Pragon977 for section blanking and page blanking. This account may be compromised. This account has existed for 2 years with very little editing. The August 10 edits are so different, it gives cause for concern that this account may be comprimised. How is this handled? — Maile (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Maile66: Normally with an indef {{uw-compblock}} -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 18:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
OTRS member, supposed confidential information and ad hominem attacks
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Od Mishehu (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Backlog of four requests left at WP:RfPP and pending oversight request
I've filled I think close to 20 page protection requests over the last few hours, but the plate hasn't quite been cleared yet, and I'm out of time. In the rolling archive, you'll also find a request for oversight - I believe oversighters have received an email about it. Regards, Samsara 09:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Malformed AfD, not on logs
There is a malformed AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyra (virtual assistant) which does not appear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 9. I have forgot how to fix these. Could someone please sort it out? DuncanHill (talk) 13:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Fixed and logged by Alex Shih. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Review of AFD closure
I have informed about this to Sandstein before posting here. The AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact of Michael Jackson) concerned a fancruft article that is being made after forking content from other articles, with no content of its own. The AFD and User talk:Sandstein#Disagree with closure provides the reasons that why this article had to be deleted, as delete votes were policy based keep votes weren't. Excelse (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Excelse: I agree the "keep" rationales look weak, but shouldn't this be taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review? Chris Troutman (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Excelse: Chris is correct, the proper venue is WP:DRV where a discussion will take place to review the close. Swarm ♠ 05:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Done Further discussions will be made on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 9#Cultural impact of Michael Jackson and this section may serve as notification for more opinions. Excelse (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Morphogenetic resonance - Request for eyes on AFD
I am requesting a set of administrator eyes on the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morphogenetic resonance. The author of the article, User:RhinoMind, has insulted the editors who have !voted to Delete. (Consensus is running very strongly in favor of Delete or Merge to Rupert Sheldrake.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- The AfD still had a few hours to run, but with one "Keep" and 14 "Delete"s there does not seem any point in prolonging it, so I have closed it. Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
CFDS needs extra help
WP:CFDS has lots of nominations from the past 56 hours, extra help until it's cleared up (no earlier than about 34 hours from now for the end of the batch) will be greatly appreciated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
AIV Backlog
There's a backlog at WP:AIV again. One IP has been sitting at AIV and making horrible personal attacks in edit summaries in the mean time. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- All done - many of the reports are now stale and not requiring immediate blocks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just a comment, to alert admins with any pertinent subject matter knowledge. Not all vandalism is obvious, even when reported. There seems to alternating waves of reported vandalism in the areas of sports, popular media (TV, children's shows, music) and India-related articles. Much of the alleged vandalizing centers around changes in statistics, awards, or other details that take a special knowledge to determine if they are actually vandalism, rather than an edit war or other. Consequently, those nominations sit there longer awaiting someone with a given knowledge. So, it would be helpful if any admins with knowledge in these areas could check AIV once in a while. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Foreverknowledge User:Porteclefs
Foreverknowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Porteclefs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Can someone please look into this user's odd behavior. They're spamming some sort of "survey" on other user's talkpages at random. This is very odd behavior, and possibly may need an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block. Thanks. 2601:1C0:104:4D83:894A:B35D:514C:7140 (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see that they have added any surveys on any pages. Might you have this confused with another editor? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: Whoops! This is the wrong editor. I'll find the other editor now. Thanks for letting me know. 2601:1C0:104:4D83:894A:B35D:514C:7140 (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: The correct user is Porteclefs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 2601:1C0:104:4D83:894A:B35D:514C:7140 (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- It looks like this has been addressed on the user's talk page, and it's not malicious activity. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: The correct user is Porteclefs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 2601:1C0:104:4D83:894A:B35D:514C:7140 (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: Whoops! This is the wrong editor. I'll find the other editor now. Thanks for letting me know. 2601:1C0:104:4D83:894A:B35D:514C:7140 (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see that they have added any surveys on any pages. Might you have this confused with another editor? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Daily Mail redux
Most of you will remember back in February that we banned the Daily Mail, a best-selling but controversial British semi-tabloid newspaper, from Wikipedia. At the time of the close, editors were reminded that "There are multiple thousands of existing citations to the Daily Mail. Volunteers are encouraged to review them, and remove/replace them as appropriate."
We don't seem to have got very far, six months down the line. As I write this, I can see 1,834 BLPs sourced to the Mail (top results - Melissa Odabash, Gabi Grecko, Janet Street-Porter, Tara Reid and Judy Huxtable). That's about 1,834 too many in my view. I have gone through some other BLPs and reviewed content (either replacing with a better source, taking the citation out if it's irrelevant, or removing the content entirely if it seems to be tabloidesque gossip that really ought not to be in BLPs), and I realise the WP:SOFIXIT attitude is a good one to have, but it'll take me months if not years to get through that lot at my typical working pace.
I realise that the ban was for the Mail full stop, but we might as well start somewhere and just focus on the BLPs, and while a backlog of over 1,800 sounds disheartening, it's peanuts compared to the NPP backlog, for example. Who else apart from me is making a point to clean up these?
On a related note, did we ever get a consensus to implement an edit filter that blocked the insertion of the Mail as a source? I can't see anything obvious that was implemented towards this.
Or perhaps, we should take a long hard look and decide the ban doesn't actually work, and get rid of it - going back to the previous status quo of it being a judgement call depending on the circumstances. Empirically, it doesn't work if we've still got so many BLPs still referencing it, and not enough motivation to remove them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well it works as to its intent - which is to stop the endless 'Is the daily mail reliable?' discussions at RSN to which 90% of the time the answer is 'not for the information you want to use it for' after going through the same RS criteria over and over again, and having to point out again and again why its not. RE edit filter: no consensus because there are valid uses for it (on itself, or historical cites for example, or other special case exceptions). Really we need a WP:DAILYMAIL (not a redirect to the RFC) guideline that lays out everything in one place (with the common exceptions) then we can just link that in edit-summaries and on noticeboards when it comes up.
- Being a BLP board regular however, its an extremely reactive board. Its not functionally possible (without automated help) to police all the biographies out there, so it handles them as and when problems crop up. If someone wants to propose a bot request to remove all dailymail citations frop bios and replace them with 'citation needed' that would be an improvement, because it would at least have a better change of flagging up for any editor who has a biography watchlisted. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Six months is not a long time, especially when there is no deadline. I would be more concerned if there were stats showing that usage was significantly rising. - Sitush (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- It isn't a long time, certainly not compared to how long most of us have been on this planet, granted; however I think it makes Wikipedia a laughing stock and ammunition for the Mail themselves to point at us and say "ha ha, they tried banning this, but look they're still referring to us in thousands of articles tee hee". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think you over-estimate how many people treat the Daily Mail seriously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I wish I could share your convictions, but looking at some basic stats, it still has a daily circulation of 1.4 million and their website has 153 million hits per day, plus on personal experience it is the most prominent paper in my local corner shop's news stand and easily the most frequently purchased. If this was some obscure web-only publication, I'd be less bothered. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Now I think you are over-estimating how many people value the opinion of those who *subscribe to the daily mail*. :) Seriously, why care? If Daily Mail readers want to believe the pap they are fed, we cant stop them, we can prevent it being used here. If Daily Mail readers want to get up in arms about not being cited on Wikipedia, well, who cares? It doesnt make Wikipedia look bad to anyone who is not a Daily Mail reader, and since our methods and practices are fundementally at odds with the way the Daily Mail works, why get worried over something that is not going to change. We are not going to change our requirements for reliable sourcing. The Daily Mail makes enough money from outright fabrications, distortions and other shenanigans that they are not going to change their working practices, and Daily Mail readers are not going to stop buying and justifying those practices because we wont cite them. So dont worry about it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I wish I could share your convictions, but looking at some basic stats, it still has a daily circulation of 1.4 million and their website has 153 million hits per day, plus on personal experience it is the most prominent paper in my local corner shop's news stand and easily the most frequently purchased. If this was some obscure web-only publication, I'd be less bothered. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think you over-estimate how many people treat the Daily Mail seriously. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- It isn't a long time, certainly not compared to how long most of us have been on this planet, granted; however I think it makes Wikipedia a laughing stock and ammunition for the Mail themselves to point at us and say "ha ha, they tried banning this, but look they're still referring to us in thousands of articles tee hee". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Please be careful in referring to the restriction and editing guidance, as a "ban" - that's fine for those not too interested in the nuance, nor technicalities and the explicit wording of the restriction but as a matter of administration and precision it is not a flat "ban". Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Do you want to tell The Guardian, The Huff Post and The Independent - because they certainly seem to think it is a ban. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- As I recall the Harvard center on journalism had the more nuanced take - although some have called it a "ban", including the Daily Mail, it is source and editing guidance to Wikipedia editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nieman center at Harvard I believe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks. "The concept of “ban” on Wikipedia is a strange one since anybody can edit an article. This is more like an agreement among Wikipedia’s most active editors to try to address the problem [of "general unreliability"] by not linking to Daily Mail articles and by editing sources that do link to them."
- In Wikipedia, it would be more of a "ban" if it were "blacklisted," as we do for some sites we really want to ban, altogether.--Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Nieman center at Harvard I believe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- As I recall the Harvard center on journalism had the more nuanced take - although some have called it a "ban", including the Daily Mail, it is source and editing guidance to Wikipedia editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Do you want to tell The Guardian, The Huff Post and The Independent - because they certainly seem to think it is a ban. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- It'd be very good idea to get an edit filter set up for this - it would be a simple one to action, and it doesn't have to disallow, merely warn. This, I think, is a necessity, because I am sure a lot of even good-faith editors don't actually know about this. It could include a few other papers as well (Sun, Mirror, Star) so we're not seen to be discriminating against one tabloid. Black Kite (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. I think I supported the "warn" back then. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Filter 126 already does the same thing for YouTube, it'd be trivial to duplicate it. Black Kite (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Presumably with "warn" you'd be able to override it if you were a confirmed user? While I'd happily lump The Sun in with the Mail, I have heard a reasonably convincing counter-argument that a lot of basic sports scores and stats would be much harder to source without it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say that pretty much any sports information you needed to be source could be done from an alternative reliable source, though. The Sun only really covers mainstream sports and they're covered very heavily. Black Kite (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- If there is a sport result in the Sun/Daily Mail that is not on the BBC website somewhere, I will be genuinely surprised. Unless its something historical. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- With "warn" anyone can override it after being displayed a warning. There's no way to say that confirmed users can override the warning and others can't, without setting up two separate filters. – Train2104 (t • c) 20:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. I think you are right. By-the by, such a "filter" for DM has already been approved by consensus at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I'd say that pretty much any sports information you needed to be source could be done from an alternative reliable source, though. The Sun only really covers mainstream sports and they're covered very heavily. Black Kite (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Presumably with "warn" you'd be able to override it if you were a confirmed user? While I'd happily lump The Sun in with the Mail, I have heard a reasonably convincing counter-argument that a lot of basic sports scores and stats would be much harder to source without it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Filter 126 already does the same thing for YouTube, it'd be trivial to duplicate it. Black Kite (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Agree. I think I supported the "warn" back then. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I have created Special:AbuseFilter/869 - "Warn new users about adding tabloid journalism to BLPs". This will trap any unconfirmed user who adds a weblink to the Daily Mail, The Sun or The Daily Star. It's not enabled yet, because I'd like some other admins with access to the edit filter (why Cyberpower678 springs to mind, I don't know, but it does) to test it out first. Once that's done, it can be enabled. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe because I inadvertently had the title blacklist block all non-admins from creating new pages in any namespace not too long ago?—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Left a comment for you in the filter notes. ~ Rob13Talk 19:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Rob, replied. Cyberpower - oh, I thought you were just giving everyone at NPP the day off, or something.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Left a comment for you in the filter notes. ~ Rob13Talk 19:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think you've got to take the user age out - this probably applies to more experienced users even more than newbies, because they're the ones more likely to be adding citations. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Well that gives a couple of options - we could warn for everybody, warn for non-admins, or warn for some other group? How about warn if the user is not autopatrolled, on the assumption that if you've been around long enough to ask for that right, and people trust you to create edits responsibility without NPP checking, you're responsible enough to know what BLP is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, I'd warn for everyone. Considering there's just been a kerfuffle on WP:ANI, part of which involved an admin adding Daily Mail links, I don't think you can assume that everyone is up to speed with these issues. And then when something like that ANI thread turns up again, no-one can turn round and say "Sorry, I thought it was OK to add that link". Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well personally I despair that an admin isn't aware of these issues, but I guess some have the excuse that the Mail isn't well known in the country they live in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Such a setup will present issues for bots and reverting vandalism, so I suggest some user qualification. Also, there is no good reason for the filter to be hidden. I'll add a check for the main namespace to reduce the load (as it scans the full text of every page for the category). I also think this should have an extended period without warning to check the false positives. We can now accept other suggestions for crap BLP sources. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Well personally I despair that an admin isn't aware of these issues, but I guess some have the excuse that the Mail isn't well known in the country they live in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, I'd warn for everyone. Considering there's just been a kerfuffle on WP:ANI, part of which involved an admin adding Daily Mail links, I don't think you can assume that everyone is up to speed with these issues. And then when something like that ANI thread turns up again, no-one can turn round and say "Sorry, I thought it was OK to add that link". Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Well that gives a couple of options - we could warn for everybody, warn for non-admins, or warn for some other group? How about warn if the user is not autopatrolled, on the assumption that if you've been around long enough to ask for that right, and people trust you to create edits responsibility without NPP checking, you're responsible enough to know what BLP is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:13, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Incorrigible Troll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Purple Back Pack needs to retire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Puppetmaster Incorrigible Troll creates an SPA vandalism-only account every few days. For the full list, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Incorrigible Troll/Archive and User:Purplebackpack89/PeopleWhoVandMe for the complete list. I am requesting that the IPs that Incorrigble and his socks frequent be rangeblocked for a significant amount of time. pbp 21:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- Purplebackpack89, please make this request at the SPI itself. The only way the underlying IP range can be reviewed and blocked is via CheckUser data which admins do not have access to, so this request isn't possible to fulfill here. ~ Rob13Talk 21:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Shawna Della-Ricca
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 article seems to have been moved by its creator Zazaqwer from the article namespace to the Wikipedia namespace in error. I had prodded the article for deletion with this edit. I am not sure if the move was an attempt to contest the prod by userfying the article or by moving it to the draft namespace, but it does not belong in the Wikipedia namespace. The article was then subsequently deprodded by another editor after the move. Would an admin mind taking a look at this and see if there's a way to sort it out? If the intent was to move it back to the draft namespace, then that's fine with me. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I moved it back for now. It should go to AfD or be moved to User- or Draft-space. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions question
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know that there are certain articles which cannot be edited by non-administrators because the article has been protected due to the nature of its subject matter and because such articles tend to attract lots of contorversial edits. I am wondering how this apples to userspace drafts or drafts of articles whose topics would fall under the same sanctions if they were added to the article namespace. For example, User:Kingsindian/Ramallah lynching draft appears to come from 2000 Ramallah lynching, so I curious as to whether the sanctions also apply to that draft. I'm not accusing anyone of doing anything wrong; it's just that the article is protected, but the same content can be easily edited as a draft. For reference, I came across the draft while doing some non-free image cleanup, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- It's fine to have a draft, although Kingsindian should have included a link to the original article in the edit summary when copying the material per WP:CWW. Generally a user draft would be for that user to prepare a proposal that they might later present on the article talk page. In some cases, multiple people work on such a draft with no problem. Normal policies such as WP:BLP and WP:COPYVIO apply to drafts. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- The original article was full-protected for three days after some minor edit-warring. The draft was created as part of a talk page discussion here. Once the draft is incorporated into the article, I'll put it up for deletion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Need some clarification
I would like to ask for some general comments on this kind of user/user behaviour. This is not an isolated case, but I cannot seem to find relevant discussion. My first impression would be WP:NOTHERE and WP:NOTFORUM (209 edits; 0 edits in the article space), but the existing guideline doesn't seem to explicitly describe this kind of approach. It would be fine if the questions were relevant to editing, but it's certainly not the case here (see revision history), so I would like some admin/non-admin input on what should be done in this scenario. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 18:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
410 CSD currently listed
There are currently 410 CSD listed at Admin dashboard. A random check appears that they are the result of @CatcherStorm: running AWB, and those tags appear at the bottom of the articles, rather than the top. Assuming these are legitimately tagged articles, and not an AWB glitch, is there a way to mass delete? — Maile (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I spoke with CatcherStorm about this on their talk page. This is apparently an error, and I requested that they revert these edits, as almost all of the ones I've seen did not meet G13 for being over 6 months without editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I am coming across more now that do meet G13, at least for time (last edit over 6 months ago). Really would like an extra set of eyes to help go through these. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Blue Indigo Sock
I want to report a sock action by Blue Indigo in the following article and his actions in driving another editor out in Phillipe Orléans
https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=Louis_Joseph,_Dauphin_of_France&diff=782960720&oldid=781197090 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth seeker today (talk • contribs) 17:34, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Here is Blue Indigo driving another editor outhttps://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Talk:Louis_Philippe_II,_Duke_of_Orl%C3%A9ans
- The OP is probably the return of an editor who was harassing Blue Indigo about a year ago. Acroterion (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Request for Importers access
Hello all, I have created a discussion to request importer access. Your input at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page importation#Request for Importers access - Xaosflux is welcome. Thank you for your consideration, — xaosflux Talk 14:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Rogue Commons Admin
Not sure if anyone is aware but Daphne Lantier went rouge over at commons and went on a mass deletion spree. As a result CommonsDelinker has been temporarily locked by stewards until images can be undeleted so that it doesn't go removing images from hundreds of articles. See the commons log. Not sure if the CommonsDelinker got anything here but some users might want to take a look. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't see anything that looked like it had been removed but someone else may want to check. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This rouge commons admin is a sockpuppet of User:INeverCry, who was blocked for 14 days here after the sockpuppetry was found out (with Daphne Lantier here indef blocked). Considering that Lantier then went rouge on Commons, and that INeverCry's response here to the sock block was ":@Courcelles: No worries. I've got other accounts I can use. ", I have changed their block here to indef as well. Not the kind of editor we want to keep around in my opinion. Fram (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- McCarthyism is alive and well. GoldenRing (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- ?? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: all this talk of reds... never mind. Really. GoldenRing (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- ?? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- The delinker massively affected the Narendra Modi and related Indian political articles. As it happens, I think those deletions may have been correct. - Sitush (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but I think the "rouge" part is about them deleting at Commons things like the Commons Bureaucrat's Noticeboard or the pages on Obama and Trump... Fram (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- User:Filedelinkerbot might need a shutdown too, not sure if its done, or works in waves. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- GoldenRing did the needful (it had been unlinking stuff) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 06:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- To be clear, I blocked out of caution; I've no objection to anyone unblocking if they are confident that there won't be further collateral damage without consulting me. GoldenRing (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Good block, I was geared up to do the same - it appears to have been busy unlinking things with edit summaries of
It was deleted on Commons by Daphne Lantier ...
so a cautionary block while this is smoothed out was spot on -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Good block, I was geared up to do the same - it appears to have been busy unlinking things with edit summaries of
- To be clear, I blocked out of caution; I've no objection to anyone unblocking if they are confident that there won't be further collateral damage without consulting me. GoldenRing (talk) 07:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- GoldenRing did the needful (it had been unlinking stuff) -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 06:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- User:Filedelinkerbot might need a shutdown too, not sure if its done, or works in waves. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but I think the "rouge" part is about them deleting at Commons things like the Commons Bureaucrat's Noticeboard or the pages on Obama and Trump... Fram (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know whether it was an attempt at levity, or a misspelling, but the admin actions at commons were definitely rogue, not rouge, so I've updated the title of this section. —DoRD (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- C'mon, reds under the bed, geddit? GoldenRing (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Here I am thinking we had an admin trying to use too much make up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- @DoRD: was definitely a misspelling, I have dyslexia, occasionally I make small slip ups like this. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Rouge admin? DMacks (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- C'mon, reds under the bed, geddit? GoldenRing (talk) 12:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Commons seems to have found another account. ansh666 22:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Is it possible to recover the article's history made pre-deletion and remove the edits made before July 24, 2017, when the article was a redirect? 80.183.30.39 (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Why? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect that article will be back at WP:AFD before too long. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Per WP:G4, I've reverted this to a redirect. There's no more evidence of notability than there was last time at AfD. ~ Rob13Talk 19:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- That works for me, Rob. :). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Per WP:G4, I've reverted this to a redirect. There's no more evidence of notability than there was last time at AfD. ~ Rob13Talk 19:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
ACC bit help
Two ACC users have been suspended due to inactivity, TheMesquito and Kharkiv07 both have the ACC bit which needs to be removed while on suspension per this guideline. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 20:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Block
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.
Can Administrators please block me until 30 August.This is to enforce a wikibreak for my meatspace priorities.(The Wikibreak template will not work because I also edit from a mobile)RADICAL SODA(FORCE) 07:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Done, enjoy your break! -FASTILY 08:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The presence of admins at Talk:Jared Taylor would be useful to help maintain decor in the current discussion. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- New drapes should be enough. Maybe some floral arrangements. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking maybe changing the color on the walls? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- A nice bit of Kazimir Malevich should do it. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- I was thinking maybe changing the color on the walls? Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Ronhjones is essentially botting
Wikipedia:Non-free content states that non-free images must be low resolution but there is no fixed definition. Editors must evaluate images individually and before tagging them with {{Non-free reduce}}. There must be an individual review at the tagging stage, because the image shrinking reduction is automated via bots such as User:DatBot and Ronhjones' User:RonBot.
User:Ronhjones is making 50+ edits a minute tagging images for automated reduction. This is bot behavior, there is no human review or oversight to this process. - hahnchen 14:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Hahnchen: Did you ask him if he had reviewed them first? You seem to assume he did not. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- These tags are not being made at a human rate. If they are reviewed offline beforehand, and are bot-tagged in a batch, that is still a problem because the batches are so large that they cannot be reasonably reviewed by anyone. I only noticed this behaviour when I realised that both images had been auto-tagged (and now reverted) at featured article Warlugulong. - hahnchen 15:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- As I have explained several times, to editors who bother to ask me (see my talk page archives) - the actual adding of the {{non-free reduce}} tags is the third and final stage of a lengthy process.
- I repeat the search that I did last time, in AWB in pre-parse mode - that gives me a small list (about 50) that are either new or are the result of the template being removed. I examine the history of this small set to see if I have been reverted. If reverted I will then re-assess the image and try to argue it's case with the editor, if we still disagree then go to WP:FFD - so far I have only had to do that once - see Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_July_29#File:TNA_Heavyweight_Championship.jpeg
- I reduce the fileres: parameter that I used before (by 3-5 units) and then do an advanced search in Wikipedia, so I can view the images over quite a few hours and see if I think that some won't reduce without extensive corruption of the image. If I see such an item then I will tag it appropriately with either {{non-free no reduce}} or {{non-free manual reduce}} - the choice depends on whether I think that no reduction is possible or some reduction (but not to the WP:Image resolution guideline) is possible. Only when all images have been viewed that I move to stage 3.
- I use the same list of files from (2) in AWB to add the tag - the setup is made to not add tags to files that match the RegEx (non-free no reduce|non-free manual reduce|Orphaned|non-free reduce|OTRS|Di-|ffd) - thus not to add to
- a) Files tagged for no reduction
- b) Files tagged for manual reduction
- c) Files tagged for orphaned files to be revdel (while a big version is visible the search with fileres: will pick it up)
- d) Files tagged with some OTRS template
- e) Files tagged for pseudo-speedy delete
- f) Files tagged for WP:FFD
- Then it just a matter of saving each file with the tag. Use of AWB is invaluable with the "skip" facility that matches the RegEx.
- Currently I'm getting 99.8% of the files reduced without any complaints - and the vast majority of these have been sorted out with a simple discussion. As regards user:Hahnchen's image that he reverted - File:Warlugulong - Zoom.png - The guideline size for this image would be 365x274 - I have just tried that in PhotoShop and I see no issue with the reduced size - in fact the size in the article is only 140px wide - so why is a reduction to 365px an issue? This one falls into the same issues as I had with Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_July_29#File:TNA_Heavyweight_Championship.jpeg, where editors are trying to keep a big file image without reason, which therefore fails WP:NFCC#9. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:12, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- As I have explained several times, to editors who bother to ask me (see my talk page archives) - the actual adding of the {{non-free reduce}} tags is the third and final stage of a lengthy process.
- These tags are not being made at a human rate. If they are reviewed offline beforehand, and are bot-tagged in a batch, that is still a problem because the batches are so large that they cannot be reasonably reviewed by anyone. I only noticed this behaviour when I realised that both images had been auto-tagged (and now reverted) at featured article Warlugulong. - hahnchen 15:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
- You're getting 99.8% of the files reduced without complaints because no one knows what you're doing. There are no notifications anywhere and the reduction-deletion process is automated. A lot of the reductions are just of no value, it's just pointless busy-work. Non-free content means using low resolution images, and many of the images you've tagged, such as the images in Warlugulong were reviewed as such as part of the featured article process. These are low resolution images, they conform with Wikipedia:Non-free content. That they don't fit into an arbitrary 100,000 number is irrelevant, a number described on the guideline itself as "no firm guideline".
- Users shouldn't have to search through your talk page archives for an explanation, if it looks like you're botting, you should be very clear on on your user page. According to User_talk:Ronhjones/Archive_32#File:Futurama-cast.png you "quickly look through a list of images and then use awb to add the tag", at User_talk:Ronhjones/Archive_32#Non-free_reduce_bot you mentioned how you scan down a page of 2000 images. You do not consider the size and complexity of the object depicted, the size of the source image, or its use it the article, or even the file's history.
- I have only realised now that you reduced File:Starcommand2013battle.jpg to an unreadable mush despite previous bot-reductions being reverted. You messed up the pixel art on low resolution pixel art images File:Ranger X - Gameplay.png and File:David Crane's Amazing Tennis - Gameplay.png, the former's resolution was previously discussed and reverted at User_talk:Nthep/Archive_7#Undeletion_Request_-_File:Ranger_X_-_Gameplay.png. You only get away with this because no one notices. - hahnchen 17:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- God, there's more. How on earth was File:Dys4ia.png reduced? How can Super Nintendo screenshots possibly be "high resolution"? All the reductions do to images like File:Star Fox - Gameplay.png is introduce scaling issues. The original resolution of the image is 256 x 224. It was uploaded at 512 x 448 size because that's the size I had set on the emulator, this does not change the resolution, merely that 4 pixels make up 1. This has happened because you are scanning 2000 images per page without due care and attention and have not notified any of the uploaders. - hahnchen 17:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I have only realised now that you reduced File:Starcommand2013battle.jpg to an unreadable mush despite previous bot-reductions being reverted. You messed up the pixel art on low resolution pixel art images File:Ranger X - Gameplay.png and File:David Crane's Amazing Tennis - Gameplay.png, the former's resolution was previously discussed and reverted at User_talk:Nthep/Archive_7#Undeletion_Request_-_File:Ranger_X_-_Gameplay.png. You only get away with this because no one notices. - hahnchen 17:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
This has got to stop
I previously came across this user's unjustifiable mass flagging at File:Windows 95 Desktop screenshot.png, File:Windows NT 4.0.png, File:Windows NT 3.5.png, and File:Windows 3.0 workspace.png, which caused a bunch of problems that time that required intervention from another admin to resolve (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive289#Possible issue with non-free files with orphaned versions).
Now I just found out what happened to File:Chip's Challenge.png, and from there this timely discussion. I have to say, if User:Ronhjones were not an admin I have a strong feeling this discussion would be going rather differently. Modernponderer (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- There are a whole host of screenshots that have been tagged (mainly by myself, sometimes after a simple discussion) with {{non-free no reduce}} - see Category:Non-free images tagged for no reduction, Whether or not they are all justifiable to be there, is maybe a subject for future discussion, in general these are often saved at a size which is not used within the article - and if one extended User:BU Rob13's comment at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2017_July_29#File:TNA_Heavyweight_Championship.jpeg, then maybe some of these might need some more attention - and also the bitmap files which are lingering in Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing due to having been tabbed with {{non-free manual reduce}}. Where the editors have cared to discuss with me, then I have tried to work with them - At times, I've even reversed the RevDel on request to go back to the larger image. The vast majority of non-free images hosted here need to be reduced, as most uploaders do not upload a suitable size. Back in September we had over 250,000 non-free images that were bigger than 105000 pixels (anything less than this, and DatBot will not reduce) - now we down to 120,000 images that I have not examined, and these are in the range of 180625 to 105000 pixels (so in fact the only screenshots now will be new uploads). I agree there have been a relatively tiny amount of contested files, but that was an inevitable outcome of trying to process this huge amount of over-sized files. Ronhjones (Talk) 18:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Per WP:MEATBOT, speed alone does not violate the bot policy. If the images are being manually reviewed then tagged in batches without errors that a human would not make, this is compliant with bot policy. I want to be clear that reducing the resolution of these images is legally important to justify fair use under US copyright law; this isn't being done without reason. Policies with legal considerations are not subject to consensus per WP:CONEXCEPT. In particular, the WMFs licensing policy is relevant and preempts consensus. ~ Rob13Talk 19:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- IANAL, but I don't believe it's legally required to reduce them, it's required to reduce them so as to not violate NFCC, which is more stringent then fair use (which is not a law, but a set of de facto standards set by numerous court rulings over the years). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- The courts decide what constitutes fair use, but the concept itself is written into law (in its most general possible sense). One of the prongs of a test for fair use is the extent of the use. You need to use the minimum amount necessary for your purpose or this weighs unfavorably against the use. When we render an image at info box size in an article but retain it publicly at a much higher resolution, that's hard to justify. ~ Rob13Talk 23:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, I get that, but an infobox is not the only place a non-free image can be used, so keeping reasonably-sized images (the short side somewhere near 300px) is a good thing, as opposed to much larger images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- We want uses to consider the "minimal extent" aspect of non-free policy. A 1080p screenshot of a TV show for purposes of otherwise appropriate illustration of a TV show isn't needed if a 320x240 image would do the same. A high-res album cover is rarely needed at above 300x300 for infobox purposes. And so on. Sphilbrick has it right that part of this is prevent commercial value of the original image - at reduced size, no one is going to be able to talk a WP non-free image and repurpose it for commercial value that the original commercial copyright holder had. The 0.1 megapixel guidance works well for most common non-free media types (TV, films, album covers, film posters, video game screenshots, book covers, modern paintings, etc.) given the typical aspect ratio, but it is not an absolute requirement and has flexibility. It doesn't mean you can use 1.0 megapixel images freely - users requiring non-free well above that can use it but then we expect a strong rationale of why the size can't be made smaller (such as for reading essential text on the image). --MASEM (t) 22:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, I get that, but an infobox is not the only place a non-free image can be used, so keeping reasonably-sized images (the short side somewhere near 300px) is a good thing, as opposed to much larger images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- The courts decide what constitutes fair use, but the concept itself is written into law (in its most general possible sense). One of the prongs of a test for fair use is the extent of the use. You need to use the minimum amount necessary for your purpose or this weighs unfavorably against the use. When we render an image at info box size in an article but retain it publicly at a much higher resolution, that's hard to justify. ~ Rob13Talk 23:49, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- IANAL, but I don't believe it's legally required to reduce them, it's required to reduce them so as to not violate NFCC, which is more stringent then fair use (which is not a law, but a set of de facto standards set by numerous court rulings over the years). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Per WP:MEATBOT, speed alone does not violate the bot policy. If the images are being manually reviewed then tagged in batches without errors that a human would not make, this is compliant with bot policy. I want to be clear that reducing the resolution of these images is legally important to justify fair use under US copyright law; this isn't being done without reason. Policies with legal considerations are not subject to consensus per WP:CONEXCEPT. In particular, the WMFs licensing policy is relevant and preempts consensus. ~ Rob13Talk 19:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
*Question: File:Map of Illinois Historic sites 2012.jpg when it was reduced by RJ, its print became virtually unreadable, reducing ts educational value. Can it not be not reduced? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC) I have removed the file, as it is no longer of use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, it's useless at that size. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think that is excessive, but it was done by another admin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I did not reduce the Illinois map image, the reduction was done by Datbot, and I processed the rev del of the unused image per policy.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I think that is excessive, but it was done by another admin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- I agree, it's useless at that size. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll make a couple points, some of which have been made above but some of which are worth repeating for emphasis. In many cases, reduction may be required for legal reasons, although Wikipedia deliberately takes a conservative view with respect to fair use — we don't want to bump up against the legal limits because that might invite lawsuits and a lawsuit you when is still a lawsuit you lose due to legal cost. For that reason (and this applies to copyright as well), we attempt to enforce standards within Wikipedia that are more stringent than the law requires.
The goal, as I understand it, of the NFCC requirements, I that we should produce images that might be usable in the context of an encyclopedia but would be a sufficiently poor resolution that blowing up for a poster or inclusion in a book would not be ideal, thereby reducing the likelihood that someone will subvert the potential for sale of a copyrighted item. I realize that creates a tension, in the case of very busy images which when reduced to our general guidelines (approximate .1 MB 0.1 megapixels if I remember correctly) are unreadable even in Wikipedia. I understand our desire to have images that are readable, but I'd want a legal opinion that this overrides the normal goal of keeping image is sufficiently small before I would simply okay a larger image.
I'll also note, although it is specific to the Illinois image and not necessarily useful in general, but I'm in conversation with the Kansas historical Society regarding some text I recently removed as a copyright violation and there's a chance they will license it. I note the Illinois image is owned by the Illinois historic preservation agency, and it would certainly be worth checking to see if they would be willing to explicitly license it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll also point out that while the map of Illinois sites is almost useless at that resolution and would be more useful at a larger resolution, that's not the only way to deliver that information. As an example, I created the map in List of Connecticut state parks. I will argue that a map like that portrays the information even better than a large version of the Illinois map and has the added advantage that there are no copyright issues. Obviously, it does mean someone's got to go through the work of tracking down the latitude and longitude of each location, but it's doable. One of the rationales for using a copyrighted image is that the information cannot be replaceable by other means and I'll argue this map shows that's not the case. I think it is obviously true in the case of corporate logos, but a map of locations can easily be replicated with free information. In fact, even at the reduced level, I think an argument could be made that the Illinois map doesn't comply with our nonfree use rationale.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- The Illinois map is super replaceable. I've nominated it for deletion. ~ Rob13Talk 19:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
From this discussion it's clear to me this is an issue that should be resolved through clearer policy in terms of which images can be subject to automated or quasi-automated tagging, at the very least. My apologies to User:Ronhjones for jumping into the discussion rather harshly; it was out of frustration at seeing so many images being ruined.
Could an admin please restore the original revision of File:Chip's Challenge.png? The original resolution was already not that large, and the current version is utterly unacceptable. Modernponderer (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Modernponderer: Done that for you, and added no reduce template. Also restored history as quite a bit had been deleted (the old way of treating orphaned images). In view of other comments, you might like to consider making the image in the article a better size and not use "thumb" Ronhjones (Talk) 22:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Modernponderer and Ronhjones: Woah there. This image is not rendered that large in the article. If that's the case, we can't store it that large. We don't store non-free images larger than how they're included in mainspace, because the use in mainspace is the whole "educational purpose" bit that weighs in favor of fair use; extending our use beyond that may or may not be fair use but is legally treacherous and invites lawsuits at the very least. The whole "This couldn't possibly be used at a smaller size!" argument is defeated when it is being used solely at a smaller size. I'm taking this to FfD. ~ Rob13Talk 18:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Er, that's not true. NFC doesn't correlate at all to Mediawiki display sizes, at least directly. Thumbnails are the most preferred way to display images but are not the only way. Yes, the 0.1MP size suggestion is loosely tied to the 300px max thumbnail size, but it's not something we enforce, and there are valid reasons to have images presented and/or stored larger than the thumbnail. The size aspect is more propertly set by NFCC#3a , minimizing copytaking, as well as NFCC#2, reducing opportunities for harming commercial reuse of the original work. --MASEM (t) 18:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Modernponderer and Ronhjones: Woah there. This image is not rendered that large in the article. If that's the case, we can't store it that large. We don't store non-free images larger than how they're included in mainspace, because the use in mainspace is the whole "educational purpose" bit that weighs in favor of fair use; extending our use beyond that may or may not be fair use but is legally treacherous and invites lawsuits at the very least. The whole "This couldn't possibly be used at a smaller size!" argument is defeated when it is being used solely at a smaller size. I'm taking this to FfD. ~ Rob13Talk 18:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Please disable User:Theo's Little Bot task 1
Despite the nature of automated image resizing under active discussion with unaddressed concerns above, the resizer was restarted. I do not have the rights to re-disable it. - hahnchen 14:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Disabled pending review of last update by User:Ronhjones. — xaosflux Talk 14:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- There has never been an issue with the re-sizer - all the about text refers to the actual manual adding of {{non-free reduce}} tags - no-one has ever mentioned the re-sizing bot or even suggested that we disable the bot (which we did not do) - so it was never restarted as the editor suggests. I had switched the resizer to Theo's bot - as we have a totally unrelated issue with DatBot6 where it is refusing to reduce some files and User:DatGuy has disabled it until he can fix it - Theo's version will work, but tends to fall over after some time (one might get 10 files done or 200 - very variable, but it's the only working bot) - I was hoping to see what Theo's bot would make of File:Everybody's Fool (Evanescence single - cover art).jpg as this is one of the files that DatBot6 has refused, but Theo's bot has not yet done that file - it would be nice to see if the maths done in this script work or not. If we don't want the resizer bot working then we need a consensus. I'll start it again - it won't run until 6am anyway - time to let others comment. Ronhjones (Talk) 15:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- While there is no policy about image resolutions there is the guideline WP:IMAGERES which is where the 0.1 megapixels suggestion comes from. If the uploaders of images think that there are valid reasons while that guideline should be ignored then the onus on them is either to explain that in the original rationale or if the image gets reduced or is tagged for reduction to discuss either on the file talk page or at WP:files for discussion. When the huge majority of images that are tagged are reduced without any controversy and there are a handful, by comparison, that become the subject of discussion is not grounds for disabling any bot that does the rescaling work. Nthep (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- As you've pointed out, WP:IMAGERES is a suggestion, it is not a firm guideline. 0.1 is an arbitrary number. The only reason his reductions go through, is because no one is notified. Even now, he is tagging low resolution images for reduction such as File:The Simpsons Hit and Run cover.png, File:Tragic Ceremony.jpg, File:TonightCD1.jpg this is a waste of time and just because bots can automate this waste of time, doesn't mean we should be doing it. - hahnchen 07:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux:By re-enabling the bot, and with Ronhjones semi-automatically tagging 2000 pictures at a time, the entire process is automated again, without any review. I believe the bot should be disabled until there is consensus as to whether to allow automatic resizing (from the tagging through to the resizing). Right now, stopping the bot is the easiest way of breaking the automated chain. - hahnchen 07:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- I only stopped that bot as a possible emergency, pending Ronhjones's review. Please bring your initial concerns up to the bot operator, Theopolisme. If you think it is malfunctioning, you can also get a review at WP:BOTN. From your description above though - this bot is working correctly - and you are having a dispute with @Ronhjones: that can be reviewed here. — xaosflux Talk 10:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- The last file to be tagged as part of the three stage process, I outlined earlier, was 23:34, 4 August 2017. There have only been a couple of individual files tagged as a result of reviewing the reduced files. I am waiting for the result of this discussion before any resumption of any batch process. Ronhjones (Talk) 14:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- I only stopped that bot as a possible emergency, pending Ronhjones's review. Please bring your initial concerns up to the bot operator, Theopolisme. If you think it is malfunctioning, you can also get a review at WP:BOTN. From your description above though - this bot is working correctly - and you are having a dispute with @Ronhjones: that can be reviewed here. — xaosflux Talk 10:37, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- While there is no policy about image resolutions there is the guideline WP:IMAGERES which is where the 0.1 megapixels suggestion comes from. If the uploaders of images think that there are valid reasons while that guideline should be ignored then the onus on them is either to explain that in the original rationale or if the image gets reduced or is tagged for reduction to discuss either on the file talk page or at WP:files for discussion. When the huge majority of images that are tagged are reduced without any controversy and there are a handful, by comparison, that become the subject of discussion is not grounds for disabling any bot that does the rescaling work. Nthep (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- There has never been an issue with the re-sizer - all the about text refers to the actual manual adding of {{non-free reduce}} tags - no-one has ever mentioned the re-sizing bot or even suggested that we disable the bot (which we did not do) - so it was never restarted as the editor suggests. I had switched the resizer to Theo's bot - as we have a totally unrelated issue with DatBot6 where it is refusing to reduce some files and User:DatGuy has disabled it until he can fix it - Theo's version will work, but tends to fall over after some time (one might get 10 files done or 200 - very variable, but it's the only working bot) - I was hoping to see what Theo's bot would make of File:Everybody's Fool (Evanescence single - cover art).jpg as this is one of the files that DatBot6 has refused, but Theo's bot has not yet done that file - it would be nice to see if the maths done in this script work or not. If we don't want the resizer bot working then we need a consensus. I'll start it again - it won't run until 6am anyway - time to let others comment. Ronhjones (Talk) 15:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Emergency semi-protection needed
Would someone please deal with my request for semi-protection for Lotfi A. Zadeh? Zadeh may or may not have recently died (he's 96), but IPs are editing the article to add death dates and change the tense from present to past, all without providing a citation from a WP:RS to show that he has actually died. I've done several media searches and have yet to find anything except a report from an Azerbaijani sourse saying that his health took a turn for the worst. Of course, the source also reported that his will says he wanted to be buried in Azerbaijan, so it's not entirely on unbiased and credible source of information on Zadeh (whose article has, in the past, been the subject of a lot of ethnic POV editing).
It may well be that Zadeh has died, but until we have confirmation, semi-protecting the article seems to be the right course of action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If it turns out that I need to bump it to EC-protection, drop me a note. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don;t think Primefac is around right now, but the article needs further protection, either pending changes or full protection, as confirmed editors are now editor warring to add in Zadeh's supposed death. The only sources reporting his death are Iranian, and it appears they are all based on a single source, Teheran University. I don;t believe this is a reliable source for the dath of an American citizen, resident in America, especially since there's been ethic POV fighting about whether Zadeh is Azerbaijani or Iranian. Would another admin please step in and protect the article without Zadeh's supposed death, until it can be confirmed by a reliable source? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Article protected 2 days. Figure it out on the talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Aye, sorry 'bout that. Looks like Ivanvector took care of it. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, the information hat Zadeh has died must come out of the article, as until it is confirmed by a relaibel source, it is a BLP violation. Please remove it. . When a reliable source confirms it, if they do, we can re-add it, but at this moment there is only an Iranian government source for this information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- I reacted to the "emergency" after only verifying that an edit war over a supposed death was in fact in progress, without checking the facts for myself (that's for the editors to do on the talk page, IMO), but Primefac has removed the info and I agree that one not-really-reliable source for this is not sufficient. I probably won't be able to watch this very closely; if it's resolved, any admin can feel free to remove my protection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you. As I said on the talk page, once it's been confirmed by a reliable source, I'll withdraw my objections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just to note that the report of Zadeh's death, released by Tehran University, which started this whole mess, has now been withdrawn, and that I received an e-mail from Zadeh's research assistant answering my inquiry. She says that "Professor Zadeh is alive and well." Herein lie the reasons we don't add someone's death to an article until we're really certain about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for keeping us updated Beyond My Ken. I've got it on my watchlist now, so if people start mucking about again I'll re-protect it. Hopefully your posts on the talk page will kill all death-seekers. Primefac (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- I wonder if it might not be a good idea to restore the full protection for a while, say a wekk, until this dies does. I ask since another editor just added the "information". I can keep deleting it, but I hate for their to be moments when people reading Wikipedia think the man is dead when he is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- I hate to fully-protect it for just that. I've added a helpful commented-out note in the
|death_date=
field, which hopefully anyone seeing will cause them to stop. However, if it's edited again by the time I check tomorrow, I'll fully-protect again. Primefac (talk) 02:43, 15 August 2017 (UTC)- OK, sure, that's good. Thanks for the hidden note. I was just off looking for a template for the top of the page. We have one for "recent death" and we have one for "presumed death" but we don't have one for "unconfirmed death" or "falsely reported death". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- I hate to fully-protect it for just that. I've added a helpful commented-out note in the
- I wonder if it might not be a good idea to restore the full protection for a while, say a wekk, until this dies does. I ask since another editor just added the "information". I can keep deleting it, but I hate for their to be moments when people reading Wikipedia think the man is dead when he is not. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for keeping us updated Beyond My Ken. I've got it on my watchlist now, so if people start mucking about again I'll re-protect it. Hopefully your posts on the talk page will kill all death-seekers. Primefac (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
- Just to note that the report of Zadeh's death, released by Tehran University, which started this whole mess, has now been withdrawn, and that I received an e-mail from Zadeh's research assistant answering my inquiry. She says that "Professor Zadeh is alive and well." Herein lie the reasons we don't add someone's death to an article until we're really certain about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you. As I said on the talk page, once it's been confirmed by a reliable source, I'll withdraw my objections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- I reacted to the "emergency" after only verifying that an edit war over a supposed death was in fact in progress, without checking the facts for myself (that's for the editors to do on the talk page, IMO), but Primefac has removed the info and I agree that one not-really-reliable source for this is not sufficient. I probably won't be able to watch this very closely; if it's resolved, any admin can feel free to remove my protection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- No, the information hat Zadeh has died must come out of the article, as until it is confirmed by a relaibel source, it is a BLP violation. Please remove it. . When a reliable source confirms it, if they do, we can re-add it, but at this moment there is only an Iranian government source for this information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Aye, sorry 'bout that. Looks like Ivanvector took care of it. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Article protected 2 days. Figure it out on the talk page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- I don;t think Primefac is around right now, but the article needs further protection, either pending changes or full protection, as confirmed editors are now editor warring to add in Zadeh's supposed death. The only sources reporting his death are Iranian, and it appears they are all based on a single source, Teheran University. I don;t believe this is a reliable source for the dath of an American citizen, resident in America, especially since there's been ethic POV fighting about whether Zadeh is Azerbaijani or Iranian. Would another admin please step in and protect the article without Zadeh's supposed death, until it can be confirmed by a reliable source? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
An ANI thread worth having a look at
Hi all, I know some of you (cleverly) steer clear of ANI, but just to raise awareness of the thread "WP:ANI#Heads up: Named (but not outed) editors in Breitbart piece on WP edits surrounding the Google Memo" (permalink) - I don't think there's any immediate admin action required, but eyes on Google's Ideological Echo Chamber would be helpful -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Should we add another pillar?
Good talk. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
After looking again at the Five pillars of WP, it seems that another one might be considered useful. Something like Do not expose or complain about violations of the other five, or maybe Don't Be Too Bold. If this is the wrong place to ask, please redirect me, since I'd hate to get banned or blocked again for asking a question. Basically, on more than four occasions where I've either complained or simply asked about apparent violations of policies or guidelines, it's resulted in me getting banned or blocked. For example, just yesterday, as a result of noting or implying apparent violations on the Charlie Chaplin article. Or previously, for noting multiple violations for the Peter Sellers and Stanley Kubrick articles, for which I was and still am one of their main contributors. And since I also like improving bios that need images, I've been bold (or stupid) enough to ask about image policies, which got me blocked immediately after asking. Of the hundreds of biographies I've contributed to, the only coincidental fact about those three particular bios is that the person was British or lived in Britain, a fact I noticed since I typically work on American bios. And after 10 years of actively editing, I don't recall be accused of violating guidelines about civility, being neutral, tag teaming, harassment, assuming good faith, and rarely even edit warring. Same for using only reliable sources or fixing BLP issues. In any case, after questioning or sometimes complaining about violations of four of the five pillars, I've been banned or blocked since complaining is apparently considered disruptive. So I'm naturally curious whether we should consider adding a sixth pillar. --Light show (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC) |
User Drrob2017
I would like to bring attention to a new user Drrob2017 User talk:Drrob2017 with a single purpose account who has been updating many mathematical pages with references to a certain piece of work, possibly his. [1] Limit-theorem (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)