The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And set it in the way that I can create account and edit while logged in? I just don't want anyone to put my IP address in page history. Thanks. 68.80.111.119 (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that if someone else gets assigned that IP they won't be able to edit. We only do short blocks on IPs and only to prevent current disruption. Chillum15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I am the host, and I don't want others to edit using my IP without being logged in. If they want to edit, they can create an account and log in. 166.170.0.83 (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
While you are welcome to put any sort of controls on your side of the IP it is Wikipedia's preference that IPs are allowed to edit. You have not really provided us much information about why the IP needs special consideration or why you are an authority for the IP. Chillum16:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately we won't be able to do that. If the IP address is dynamic or if you change service providers, the block will affect an unintended individual. If you are using a static IP, only those who access your internet service will edit through this IP address. If you are worried about others editing Wikipedia this can be better managed on your end by requiring a password to access the internet service, install a web filtering program that controls access to Wikipedia, or simply inform those who visit or reside in your household of your wishes. Mike V • Talk16:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
While it is, in theory, possible for you to prove that you control an IP address (for example, I control 216.92.247.137 and can prove it), the very fact that I control 216.92.247.137 means that nobody else can edit Wikipedia from that IP address. In the case of 68.80.111.119. you do not control the IP address. It is a dynamic address controlled by Comcast cable,[1] and they can assign it to someone else and give you a new IP address anytime they feel like it. I doubt that the new user would appreciate being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note the OP (presumably) posted from two different IPs:
Due to it being time for the football transfer rumours again, a lot of football-related articles are getting hit with a mixture of well-meant but problematic edits (changing clubs when nothing's been confirmed yet, etc.) and outright vandalism. As a result, about half the RPP-backlog currently exists of football-related articles.
The current list of football articles—some of which were protected during the time of writing this post—at RPP is
but many, many more articles are also effected to some degree or another, just not reported to RPP (yet). Is there any admin with some time to keep a bit of an eye on RPP for similar such requests the upcoming few hours? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
1) The first is already protected. 2) The second is not eligible because the amount of activity today is not normally the level we protect things, and we don't usually pre-emptively protect articles 3) The third probably shouldn't be protected: a single editor caused the major disruption, and is already blocked. 4) The fourth has had only one edit today, and only few editors who reverted yesterday. Again, reverts are keeping up just fine, protection not needed. I've given up checking the rest. I understand we anticipate some increased activity, but we need to weigh that anticipation against a lot of good faith increases of activity among new editors, and not pre-emptively protect articles like this. We should invite new edits, and help them by improving good faith but badly formatted or referenced edits where we can. Protection should be used sparingly and as a last resort where normal levels of reverts become a nuisance, and we can't keep up. I am not seeing that here. --Jayron3220:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that they are not reported there by me. I just noticed the severe increase in such reports today alongside various articles dealing with these issues as I was vandalfighting with Huggle, and I figured that it'd be best to point out the increased number of reports and issues so that the backlog remains manageable. It's up to the admins whether the requests are accepted or denied, as always, but I figured it'd be useful for the admins to know there were a lot of such requests to accept/deny and that more are likely to come in the rest of the day or so, thus RPP being a bit more busy than usual thus it being helpful if admins keep a bit of an eye on it. (And yes, RPP shows up on the whole administrative backlog stuff, but since RPP is there practically half of the time or so in my experience, it's not too useful in this case) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
User:Bosstopher alerted User:Bbb23 of discretionary sanctions. User:FreeRangeFrog has disregarded WP:TPO guidelines. per WP:BLANKING a user is allowed to blank the warnings and it is still considered that it is read, it also further states that if another objects to the removal or editing another individuals comments to stop. I am objecting, my contention is that Bosstopher being a long term contribute is not doing it in bad faith and Bbb23 is sufficiently experienced to manage their own talkpage. I have attempted to explain that I object to this twice [2] and [3] inappropriate removal and the response was that I can not revert the inappropriate action [4]. I made one reversion prior to this but being an admin does not give you special nanny privileges, FreeRangeFrog needs to play by the same rules as all the little people. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Would you care to enlighten us as to how any of this has anything to do with creating and maintaining an online encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
HiAB is becoming a net detriment to the project, and (a) restoring a pointy and misguided notification, then (b) going to ANI suggests that some kind of break from Wikipedia would be beneficial for the community. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Posting the notice is just being diligent, but going this far to ensure that it stays on the page seems to be a bit much. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but is there a history with User:Bosstopher I'm not familiar with? I see an editor here for at least 4 years, I assume he has a good reason to leave a template. I see what appears to be over zealous protection of another admin. I bring the relevant attention to the admin I revert once. I discuss more and with no further reverts I asked for a review here. I'm not asking for punitive action, I just think that a user that has been here that long knows what they are doing and it's not my business or anybodies but Bbb23's to respond. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
HIAB, it should've been left up to Bbb23 to decide if they actually want the content there or not. Bosstopher's warning was perhaps misguided, maybe it wasn't; one could say the same about FreeRangeFrog's removal (which would probably have been a lot better had they not accidentally hit enter whilst writing out the edit summary). HiAB, trout yourself for wasting your own time with the reversion, and for wasting everyone's time with this fairly frivolous ANI thread. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here)01:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
If it's a non issue I apologize but I really despise removing comments that are legitimate. This seemed like a very reasonable response [[5]]. So with all this mandatoriness and all of notifications for DS or TPO, who is exempt? What level of editors can give those notices and who are suitable to receive those? I'm sorry I'm just the type of person I like explicit guidelines that we can all follow. Maybe that just isn't the case. I've explained my position if it's the communities decision that FRF actions were above board I can hardly complain as we all live by consensus. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
From my POV this seems like a done and dusted event. I certainly didn't mean to be threatening or POINTy, at least I dont think I was making a disruptive point, I just didn't want the other alerted editor to feel like they were being unfairly targeted. I (and quite a few other editors who watch the page) tend to give sanctions alerts to everyone who comments on the Talk:Gamergate controversy page, but it seems like alerts are approached differently in most other topic areas. It definitely was not meant as a warning, as if you look at the talk page history Bbb23 and me have mostly been in agreement on the topic. Bosstopher (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The other user has been editing for a month and has a total of 16 edits, all regarding a single purpose. There is no need to issue sanction notifications to experienced editors in a case like that, particularly given that one of your edits (diff) pointed out "You can't call a BLP racist in wikipedia's voice" (that is, at least some of the new user's text was blatantly inappropriate). For the record, the old text (before the new user arrived) looks more DUE to me, and the recent activity seems to be the usual whipping-up of indignation about a recent and very minor "controversy". Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bosstopher: It was never my intention to cast aspersions at you or your experience, etc. If I came across as such then I apologize. My only point was that the warning was unnecessary. That might be a point of disagreement and a topic of wider discussion of course (does a CU really need a DS warning or is that just taking the bureaucracy a bit too far?) , but unfortunately it just generated more dramaz. §FreeRangeFrogcroak19:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: It's fine I don't feel slighted or insulted in the slightest, and it didnt come across like that. Was just trying to explain the point of view from which I was approaching this. Tbh this seems like a done and settled issue to me. Bbb23 has read the alert, the other editor has been permabanned (which is a slight pity because they seemed to be slowly learning proper editing style), and I've had the odd pleasure of having the number 4 appear in my red notification box for the first time. I'd be fine with this being closed, as long as User:Hell in a Bucket doesn't have any issues he thinks still need to be discussed.Bosstopher (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
BAsically Bbb23 solved it for us and I appreciate the comment by FRF but it's obvious it's an issue the community doesn't really care about so close away. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I am requesting some caution with User:Wiki-shield. He/she has a history of trying to remove anything critical of Cogmed and accused me of being associated with Lumosity (cogmed's presumed market rival), which isn't true. This person has a very short history on Wikipedia and most of it is trying to remove anything critical of 'brain training' programs. Here are some of WS's latest edits.[6].
@Taeyebaar, I don't know what is the cause of your personal vendetta with Cogmed and other memory/brain training programs but your history of editing these articles shows crafting the text in negative manner and removing all positive references and all supporting research. As for your statement re Lumosity, interestingly enough I never said (or thought before) that you are associated with Lumosity... Yet, looking at Lumosity history I see now that this is the only memory/brain training program where you didn't do negative edits, assigned to Wiki Skepticism, etc. Should we read your message above as a self-confession in sock-puppetry...?Wiki-shield (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not accusing him/her of being associated with anything, but his defensiveness for cogmed (and possibly other programs) seems suspicious. I think a neutral admin or other admins should keep a close eye on this individual and his/her activity. Thanks.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
A lovingly crafted advertisement. Once the PR crap is blasted out, it is a lot shorter but better for it. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Advertisement??? Did you even bother reading about Cogmed before removing 80% of article incl. the history of Cogmed and all supporting research??? Cogmed is the most reputable memory training program and it is used by millions of people around the world as an alternative to ADHD medication. Virtually every mental health professional in the US and Canada recognizes and supports Cogmed training. It is the only program supported and recognized by American Psychological Association (APA). There are over 45 independent peer-reviewed research studies from top universities and research centers supporting benefits of Cogmed training. So far there is only 3 negative studies for Cogmed, but these are dis-proportionally inflated in popular media - being an alternative to ADHD drugs, Cogmed is jeopardizing profits of Big Pharma... I have absolutely no association with Cogmed, but as a psychotherapist who treats ADHD patients, I am very upset with your actions. I urge you to revisit the article and reconsider your edits. There is no point with going into editing wars with admin but I suggest that other admins (especially ones with psychology background) look into this issue.Wiki-shield (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I did. And I have a decade of Wikipedia experience covering tens of thousands of edits on thousands of articles. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Well it looks like it's pointless to argue with admins in Wikipedia... As a professional, I am deeply disturbed that non-professionals like you manipulate public opinion making edits without even investigating the subject. Yet, I don't want to waste my time here - with admins like you improving Wikipedia is an impossible task Wiki-shield (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there are a number of paid COI editors who do excellent work and have no problem getting their work into the encyclopedia. All it takes is the courage to put Wikipedia first and to inform the client that following Wikipedia's rules is the only way to make changes that don't get reverted. There are plenty of corporate articles full of errors or unsourced claims by the corporations enemies. A good disclosed paid COI editor can turn those articles into neutral, well-sourced articles, which is usually money well spent. What they can't do is turn them into advertisements or PR fluff pieces. For that you have to find a website that accepts paid advertising. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I solidly agree with Guy Macon. See the history and talk page for our Tony Blinken article. Bgluckman, employed by a PR firm, did a wonderful job of improving the article while carefully following our COI standards: we started with a rather crummy page with a bunch of errors and content cited to sources that didn't support the content, and he helped us turn it into a far better article. If everyone with conflicts of interest worked like Bgluckman, the issue of paid editing wouldn't even be seen as a problem. Nyttend (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Wiki-shield claimed that for paid COI editors like himself, "improving Wikipedia is an impossible task". Nyttend and I pointed out that others not only manage to do it, but to make a living at it, by actually improving Wikipedia instead of trying to misuse Wikipedia as a place to run ads without paying for them. What's the problem with saying that? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually I think a topic ban is called for for wiki-shield. Not only is this an obvious red flag name, but wiki-shield is a WP:SPA whose sole purpose here is to make partisan edits to a walled garden of articles around the questionable practice of brain training. For example:
I thought you are a sock for Lumosity (based on your self admission), but it looks like you are too concerned about LearningRx. That explains things, unlike LearningRx which is a "Herbalife" of brain training, Lumosity is doing quite well and could afford to hire some rotten Wikipedia admin to promote it.
Seeing that this individual realizes nothing wrong with removing reliably sourced material, I think a topic ban is now warranted. I just had to revert his vandalism on Arrowsmith School for the dozenth time. Should I report WS on the vandalism notice board.Taeyebaar (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any formal association with Cogmed. My reasoning is very simple, as a psychotherapist I see many ADHD patients who greatly benefited from Cogmed training. Some were even able to stop medications. Then 3 months ago I noticed how bad the Wikipedia article is and decided to contribute my time to improve it. After realizing what a mess Wikipedia is and how many content manipulations going on here I decided to stay longer and fight for a good cause. Then it developed into a hobby :)
Wiki-shield(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is a WP:SPA whose edits serve to promote Cogmed. This editor has several times alleged (without benefit of evidence) that those who oppose his strongly partisan edits, are paid by Luminosity, a competitor. Both companies exist within a walled garden of articles on "brain training", an area rife with dubious and inflated claims. There are others who appear to be similarly conflicted, but Wiki-shield is an unambiguous partisan here with no other evident interest in Wikipedia.
I propose that Wiki-shield is banned from the topic of brain training, broadly construed, for a period of one year. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Strong support except I think it should be for good. His rude comments (see above samples) and edit wars -including the blanking of reliably sourced info from experts in the field of brain science- is enough to warrant a forever ban from these topics. If common sense prevailed on Wikipedia, he would have been banned the first few weeks after he (or she) joined. But by the minimum he should be banned permanently from these topics.
Being reverted by multiple editors, only to continue removing reliably sourced arguments from those qualified in brain study and instead leaving in unsupported (usually anecdotal) claims by marketers of expensive 'brain training' programs shows his defiance of WP:NPOV which is enough to be banned from Wikipedia altogether. But again this permanent topic ban should be the minimum he should receive, nothing less.--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
And by the way, I never removed counter-arguments made by the Arrowsmith School that they're program actually does work. Howard Eaton who runs the Eaton Arrowsmith School made dubious arguments supportive of the program he co-runs and I left it in. Wiki-Shield however likes to keep citations like that left in while blanking out citations from profs who have openly criticized the program which is a clear violation of WP:RS, WP:Vandalism and WP:NPOV--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick note - the user who requested the ban on the user Wiki-Shield - Taeyebaar - appears to have a simple history adding exclusively "skepticism" to a group of similar articles - Cogmed, Arrowsmith School, Luminosity, LearningRX, etc. - apparently all connected to ideas surrounding "neuroplasticity", which they themselves have added most of the skepticism and criticism for accordingly for their edit history. Said user is clearly biased towards these subjects towards a specific viewpoint, and these articles are being considerably unbalanced by said users "reliably sourced edits". See WP:NPOV WP:BALASPS WP:UNDUE
Instead suggest that Administrators monitor the unbalanced and opinionated activity of Taeyebaar (Unlike the attack on Guy who is obviously a long-term editor).
I propose that Taeyebaar is also banned from the topic of brain training, broadly construed, for a period of one year. Neither Taeyebaar or Wiki-shield are unbiased editors for these subjects! They deserve unbiased editing from here on in.
Beardocratic (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Digging a little further - it would appear that user Taeyebaar has been actively and systematically deleting articles - Cogmed, LearningRX, etc. in this space, in addition to unbalancing remaining articles with skepticism. Seems like said user is running a one-man war against brain training - it is tantamount to WP:Vandalism. They obviously have a specific viewpoint they are trying to push, at the cost of other editor's effort. Beardocratic (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict with Andy) Perhaps you should have dug even further. Your assertion is without merit. Taeyebaar has no power to delete articles; that editor is not an administrator, so cannot do so. At least in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination), a formal process involving a number of different editors, that editor's assertion was to keep, not delete the page. BusterD (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of 'exclusive' editing histories, Beardocratic, is this account your first one (with an edit history consisting as it does of nothing but posts to this thread), or have you previously contributed under another name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I think I had enough of this nonsense. I don't want to waste my time fighting rotten admins and biased editors with hidden agenda. Wikipedia become a place where content is easily manipulated for personal purposes by a group of admins and long time editors who either satisfy their own ambitions to be "important" or just take money from interested parties for manipulating public opinion. The general public (like me) seems quite naive about Wikipedia perceived objectivity and "collective" editing process. Looks like all these things are in the past. I will be teaming up with my good friend who is a reporter for New York Times to prepare an editorial "Wikipedia: behind the curtains". The article will discuss abuse of powers by "old boys club" of admins, using WP technicalities to remove valid content in order to manipulate and misrepresent facts, bushing editors who speak the truth against authority users, etc. We will use the history of manipulating brain training programs as an example, so some of you will find yourself very popular soon. Hopefully, this editorial will educate readers that they CANNOT any longer trust Wikipedia content. For those admins who want to collaborate and provide examples similar to infamous Lumosity, Cogmed, Arrowsmith School, etc. please email me at wikipedianyt@gmail.com. Thanks for educating me on politics of WP and goodbye! Wiki-shield (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks everyone who replied to my message above: I received 17 emails with examples of abuse and proposals to collaborate in less then 2 hours! Looks like there are still quite a few honest admins/editors here who want to make Wikipedia a better place. Wiki-shield (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It will certainly help, Mr. Chapman. I just learned from my friend's assistant that you managed to insert 791 links to your personal site from different WP pages using your profile signature and then changed the profile - nice job! :) BTW, both sites that you claim to help with are also linked from WP pages - somehow I'm not surprised here... Wiki-shield (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget to dredge up the Ecopave spammer's nonsensical claims of affiliate marketing while you're at it. That's always good for a laugh. There are actually 792 links to my website on Wikipedia, quite a few of which were not added by me at all. I did indeed link my website in my sig for a short while in 2005, but stopped as soon as someone pointed out this was frowned upon. It would pain me not a bit if they were all removed.
What you're doing, you see, is exactly what you've been doing all along: deciding you're right, that everybody who disagrees with you is evil and corrupt, and then looking for data to support your preconceived conclusions. That's a great way to be wrong, to keep on being wrong, and to get more and more wrong over time. I do not give a toss about Cogmed. I do not give a toss about Luminosity either. I have to look the names up by scrolling up thread because they are not even significant enough to me to be able to reliably remember the names. Just because you are here solely to wage war over this, don't assume that anybody else is. Wikipedia, as a body corporate, has no dog in this fight at all. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
That's another good one... I just learned from another editor (sorry, I am new to WP) how you linked my account and account of my business partner John. Did any of you wise guys considered that more than one person in the office (or even household) can contribute to Wkipedia? As for your "do not give a toss about XXX" statements above, probably you shouldn't edit articles where you have no interest nor knowledge... Wiki-shield (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
But do be on the lookout for that hard-hitting NYT editorial exposing the grungy back-room dealings of Wikipedia! I know that the Times is always looking for a {hummm-ha-um, oh, excuse me, just bored myself there) breaking story like that to latch on to. We should be seeing it right after they expose (for the 300th time) just what goes into hot dogs. (Incidentally, threatening to go to the press is yet another one of the "chilling effect" threats which should be met with an indef threat.) BMK (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't do much for an editor's chances of getting what he wants (unless what he wants is a ban). Guy (Help!) 16:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Wikishield has been indef'd as a sock of Mishash, Mishash has been blocked 1 week as a sockpuppeteer. There's no question in my mind that the users operating these accounts are not here to do general article development within Wikipedia's content and behavior rules. However they appear on User Talk:Bbb23 to be saying (with the blocked sock) that they're done editing anyway. Probably best to just ignore these accounts per WP:DENY, but if trouble returns in a week with the main account we can deal with it at that time. Zad6816:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This recent thread reminded me to ask if we have any guideline that says that reminds users (esp. admins) not to give details beyond the specifics of a current case, of how to be disruptive. I think if this doesn't exist, it might be worth considering. Samsara01:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You are right, that seems to have the essence of it. I think it might have to be polished up a bit to be taken seriously. At the moment, it seems to be a gallery of unfortunate buttons plus a nursery story. Is this state of things something we're quite attached to? I was hoping there might be something more straightforward and polished like "WP:Avoid teaching disruptive behaviours". Samsara01:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Security through obscurity is weak. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't respect WP:BEANS but to try to elevate it to guideline status would be problematic. There are lots of reasons it may be useful to discuss potential methods of being abusive, and it would involve lots of complexity to try and thread a line between useful discussion aimed at protecting Wikipedia, and harmful discussion that unnecessarily discusses methods of abuse. (or information useful to those looking to be abusive) Given how well people tend to obey WP:BEANS already, I think the status-quo is fine, we are effectively not talking about them, without having to have a prohibition. Monty84503:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kerckhoffs's principle applies here. You cannot hide information like "what is the most effective way of disrupting Wikipedia?" -- it will simply be published at http://wikipediocracy.com/ if you try. Having the information hidden from those who fight vandalism yet easily discoverable by any vandal who knows how to use google is a bad thing, not a good thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There are things we can't reasonably keep secret. And there are details that we need to mention publicly, partly necessary for reasonable transparency. However, anything that isn't simple to figure out, public knowledge, or necessary to inform the public of, we don't. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu09:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Everybody seems to always wrongly assume that this is an argument about obscurity as a binary property. It isn't. It's a question of entropy. If you widely disseminate an instruction, even to the marginally interested, you'll get more takers. Samsara10:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily so. This is like the old fear that if you teach children sex education, they'll start having sex. LizRead!Talk!10:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The plain truth is that choosing to not widely disseminate this sort of information is not an option that is available to us. We don't control the Internet. and if we try to suppress the information here on Wikipedia all we will accomplish is triggering the Streisand effect. Security through obscurity is one of those fundamental errors that seem like a really good idea but in practice is a disaster. Wikipedia instead needs to follow the principle of Secure by design and make all such information publicly accessible and easy to find. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that it is OK to allow a vulnerability to exist if few people know about it. Instead, do the right thing, publicize the flaw, and then work to make it so that the vulnerability no longer exists. For example. publicizing the fact that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is publicizing a security flaw: anyone can vandalize Wikipedia. Does this mean we should try to hide the fact that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? No. It means we should figure out better and better countermeasures to the vandalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Security through obscurity may be weak, but carefully publishing a list of all the exploits that are currently known to be effective, even if your context is "stuff we're fixing right now", is foolish. BEANS is really about not encouraging people to try deleting the main page just to see if it works (and in more contexts than just vandalism), rather than closing our eyes and pretending that so long as we're not aware of a problem being widely published, then no problems actually need to be fixed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A lot of it isn't vulnerabilities that we can really fix, so much as policy compromises, or just common practice that leave room for someone to maneuver around them to avoid our first several lines of defense against disruption. As an example, it would be trivial for someone who wanted to vandalize to review how cluebot works, and vandalize in ways that wont trigger it. Now we have more lines behind that, but that doesn't mean we should just tell people how they would get past that first one for the hell of it. Monty84519:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requesting consensus from an experienced editor. Been an inactive discussion for awhile. Also there has been probably a little too much improvement on the article to probably suppport the merge. Jhenderson77720:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I seem to remember a tool somewhere which would look at the history of an article and determine what percentage of the article was written by a specific editor (or all the contributors to the article). Anyone know what I'm talking about? Thanks for any help. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
On the History page for each article, you'll see a "Revision history statistics" link. Hit that link then scroll down the page and you'll see percentages by number of edits and amount of text for the top 10%. BMK (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What can you tag for if a BLP has only links to Youtube
Which is the case here Mišo Bojić, the person had them as refs which I moved them to EL's but not sure if it would go for deletion or what! Wgolf (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I do agree-but a few days ago a admin did delete some of the prods from articles that had no refs but just els (to the IMDB and other places like that) so as of late I'm not even sure anymore to put a BLP prod as of now...Wgolf (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
BLP unsourced issues seem to be different depending on the admin
Okay for example-several articles have been deleted with EL's to places while a few days ago I got a notice saying not to put a BLP prod up if they have ELs! (I even got a undo one time when the EL was to Linked in!)
Like here: Paul McGill (actor)-was removed as there was a EL to the IMDB. I am getting too confused now over what to count as a BLP prod and not! Same with Jon McBride (filmmaker). Though others with EL's only to there are prodded so yeah. Wgolf (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
See WP:BLPPROD: " To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.)," If it has an external link, it is not eligible for BLPPROD. Anyone who deletes an article with an external link as BLPPROD is doing so against policy. That doesn't mean they need to be punished. It just means they need to be told to stop. --Jayron3201:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Well I use to not put up BLP prods if there were el's but since I was seeing some getting deleted with EL's as of late it is getting crazy. (Though if the el is Twitter/Facebook/Linked in/stuff like that...)
It does get confusing. Wgolf (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Please note that having an external link does not make an article immune to deletion. It just means that BLPPROD cannot be the rationale. There are many other reasons to delete something. If an admin is deleting things with the BLPPROD rationale, and there's an external link in the article, it shouldn't be deleted. Now, there are rationales like WP:CSD#A7 which require that the article doesn't make any credible assertions of importance. SO if an article said something like "Billy is a cute kid and sits next to me in math class" and nothing else, BUT included an external link to an article about Billy written up in a local newspaper, it would not be eligible per BLPPROD, but would be per A7. If, however, a credible claim of importance is asserted, and the article includes at least one reference or external link, it should only be deleted by more deliberative processes, such as regular PROD or AFD. --Jayron3201:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Can someone point me to the tools for seeing the contributions from an IP range? This works but the display is not very user-friendly. Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Fox News Channel RfC has been open for 9 1/2 months. I believe the automated RfC maintenance software was confused by a fictional year-2252 comment date someone created in a how-to-vote example.
Micro summary: RfC asked about usage of "some" vs "many" in the lead. Late in the process a few editors came up with an alternate well sources wording. That alternate appears to have been stable for the last 7 months. I suggest a No Consensus on the "some vs many" question, and some non-binding comment that the article now has a stable alternate wording. Alsee (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Frogger3140 (talk·contribs) was blocked way back in 2008 for vandalism. Nearly seven years on, he's filed an unblock request saying he's now grown up a lot and is willing to play by the rules. Does anyone have any objections if I unblock him? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
If they explain that they're interested in editing and what they plan to do when unblocked, then I don't see why not. Sam Walton (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't really remember this case, as it was 2008. But from what I can see, the block was the result of "Grawp like" page moves. An example can be found here. Tiptoetytalk22:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
You mean it could be Grawp, Tiptoety? Surely not. I can't fathom why Grawp would take the trouble to try to get an old account unblocked. He can't have run out of open proxies, can he? I tend towards supporting an unblock. Bishonen | talk20:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC).
Ah, no, that's not what I mean. What I mean is he was intentionally making edits to trigger the Grawp edit filters without explanation. In the grand scheme of things I don't see him as a big nuisance. Tiptoetytalk20:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Unblock Yes please definitely let him back in. He did the right thing by admitting to his sockpuppetry and I really cant see any way we could legitimately support maintaining the block when he could have just lied and said he was a new user. —Soap—06:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Unblock Thanks for the clarification, Tiptoety. He's been open about socking as User:Macbookair3140, but that was a few years ago, and I can't see any evidence of anything more recent. I'm inclined to let him come back. Yunshui雲水08:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Unblock There seems to be no reason to continue this block given the post on the editor's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not sure how you go about apealing an IP block that
a) is and probably will be totally valid for the near future due to the way the network works at a location
b) isn't currently causing an issue (to the best of my knowledge).
So hear goes.
I am a relativley recent employee of the organisation it relates to (and will be going and declaring my COI in the not too distant future) as nessecary.
The IP address 81.144.199.142 has been blcoked as a school block. While the vandalism is quite likely to be from a school the ip address is actually the routing point for all of the traffic from the Council including all the schools and other offices in the County. As part of an event we are thinking of hosting later in the year we were hoping on having several students accessing, editing and using wikipedia as a reference material in one location to see how the articles about their schools either exist or dont need updating or not and how to go about doing so with regards to how data can be accurate.
Is it possible to get consensus to grant a temporary release from the block (if the event goes ahead) and if so how would we need to go about doing so. The blocking admin JamesBWatson has advised they are busy so may not reply hence coming here. Amortias (T)(C) 11:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I've got no problem with that. Sounds like a good event, and I would have no problem releasing the block. Blocks are cheap, and if vandalism begins anew, we can always put it back. It's really not a big issue. --Jayron3211:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Aye thats what I thought, no guarantee it'll even run but wanted to get the biggest stumbling block out of the way first. Amortias (T)(C) 11:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@Amortias: I see no problem with removing the block for the event you mention. However, the IP address has been the source of vandalism for over nine years, with the problem returning each time a block expires, so I would prefer it to be a temporary block-removal, just covering the period in which the event takes place, rather than unblocking now. If and when you do have a definite date, let me or another administrator know in good time, so that the block can be lifted before the event. I also suggest that when the event goes ahead, you get each of the students to start by creating an account, rather than editing anonymously. That way, if vandalism re-starts, and some administrator re-blocks the IP address, the students will not suddenly find that they can't continue with their project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
A temporary unblock is probably the best approach. But if anything goes wrong with that, you could either have them create accounts at home in advance, or can create up to 6 yourself, if you needed more than that, anyone with the account creator right could create as many as you needed (or you could just request the user right to do it yourself). Monty84516:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I recently declined a request for the indefinite semi-protection of a talk page which led to a discussion on my talk page about the merits of protecting a talk page. While looking for information concerning this topic under a user's request to reconsider I noticed that Talk:Gamergate controversy is both semi-protected and subject to a restriction of needing 500 edits and a minimum account age of a month to even comment on the talk page. This has led to some interesting discussions (Talk:Gamergate controversy#Who Judges Which Is A Viable Source Or Not?) where in order to follow the discussion user has to read the diffs of otherwise valid comments that were removed simply because an editor has less than 500 edits. This restriction has also generated discussion (Talk:Gamergate controversy/Removal of comments from the talk page) about the removal of other's comments from the talk page where it was mentioned that it may be prudent to discuss removing these sanctions here or at AE (I believe that this is a wider forum than would be found at WP:AE).
As a community that welcomes anonymous editing, was built around the idea that "anyone can edit", and the fundamental assumption of good faith. Blocking anonymous/new users from even being able to suggest an edit or make a comment on the talk page is something I find contrary to our goal here. The talk page is not something a reader would normally see unless it was sought out and it is the forum for discussion to take place about changes to the article. As a member of the community and administrator, I believe it should remain open for that discussion in all but the most exceptional cases (WP:HUMAN and meta:Founding principles). Simply removing otherwise valid comments and leaving diffs simply due to an account being below an arbitrary threshold is in my opinion an extremely poor solution for discussion and makes the building consensus considerably harder. Therefore I was curious to see the thoughts of other administrators and editors about this restriction and discuss if there was a consensus by the community to perhaps remove or refine it. Best, Mifter (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This page-level sanction an interesting experiment that Zad68 is attempting. I'm not sure how effective it will be but I'm curious to see how it will turn out. At Wikipedia we are committed to open access and assuming good faith, but that commitment, as the saying goes, need not be a suicide pact. For nearly a year, parties have openly colluded offsite to attempt to manipulate the Wikipedia articles regarding this subject. They have harassed and doxxed editors off-site, not to mention the low-level harassment of constant drive-by attacks on the talk page. This seems a reasonable restriction given the specific circumstances of this page, and one we can revisit when it has been in place long enough that we can judge its effectiveness. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but it has been a long time since it has been the encyclopedia where anyone can edit any page at any time for any reason, otherwise we should just unprotect the main page now. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
As I've mentioned everywhere, this restriction is to my detriment as I am a bit of a slow editor. That being said, I am fully in favor of it as likely to produce a better article. I am, however, hopeful about the elegance of Zad68's (and now Gamaliel's) solution of subpages. Perhaps an unrestricted subpage could be created? I am not sure if the signal to noise ratio would be worth it, and I am mindful that it's veering close to WP:FORUM territory. Also, of course, there are WP:BLP concerns. But maybe it would be a way to stop (or at least slow) the meta-page discussions? Just a thought. Feel free to tell me how wrong I am! Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I am also interested in seeing how this works out as we do need to be prudent in protecting the encyclopedia despite my concerns. However, using IAR/extenuating circumstances to justify extraordinary action on what is supposed to be a discussion page and not an article is a slippery slope as it risks undermining our core principles of discussing changes and generating consensus for a short term gain. The largest red flag I see with the current system stems from removal of otherwise legitimate comments that further stimulate and contribute to discussion (12 and other removals in the history) simply because of a user not meeting an arbitrary threshold. I would like to see some way to allow useful comments/discussion without the blanket removing/rejection of comments, my first thought was something like the Huggle Whitelist but I'm not sure it would be practical. I see the 500 edit/30 day requirement as causing too much collateral damage for a talk page that is supposed to allow open discussion and invite differing viewpoints in how to structure the article. Mifter (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Mifter, I don't think it is possible to compare this article to other articles seen as "controversial". Take an hour and wander through the 38 archived talk pages and look over the circular debates, the questions that are asked over and over and over (X30), the drive-by name calling and insults that were commonplace on this talk page. And this is 38 pages over a period of TEN months. I don't think you can underestimate how divisive this talk page once was. At this point, the sources have been examined and reexamined in detail, and nothing revolutionary is going to happen. Gamergate was an event that is over and right now only exists on message boards. It's a matter of polishing up the article and protecting it from vandalism. LizRead!Talk!23:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted this restriction was enacted in response to an arbitration enforcement thread [8] alleging battleground behavior by TheRedPenOfDoom. As best I can tell the closing administrator's motivation was to limit potentially triggering behavior, to the extent possible. 107.107.58.254 (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
With the greatest respect, the core principle has already been undermined. The Encyclopedia Everyone Can Edit is here being transformed to the encyclopedia that any well-organized and well-funded PR organization can subvert. Gamergate tactics have involved recruiting an apparently endless stream of new, IP, and zombie accounts which appear in campaigns, organized offsite. Often, these campaigns reopen questions that had been settled before -- two week intervals have been very common -- under the pretext that the “new” editors could not have participated in them. The result has been well over a million words of Talk Page, literally dozens of BLP violations including persistent discussion of the sex lives of women in the software industry, dozens of bans and blocks, an ARBCOM case, an extraordinary amount of admin work, and newspaper coverage that has ranged from highly critical of Wikipedia to derisory. The suicide pact in this case contemplates the suicide of the project, nothing less. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
This seems like the worst possible system, except for all those others which have from time to time, been tried. Let it run for a while and see how it goes. While it might be tempting to make WP:AGF exceptions, that would, I am afraid, be much more likely to open the door to rampant gaming of the system, as has been seen consistently to date with this subject. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as a former arb who worked on the nightmare that was the gamergate arbitration case, I agree with Guy. This is by no means an optimal situation, but we have an exceptionally problematic topic area here. Anyone who is both brand new to editing here and drawn like a moth to the flame to this topic at this late date is probably an extremist of one type or another. Is it possible this is preventing good-faaith newbies from particpating? Yes. And that's a shame, but exceptional circumstances call for exceptional solutions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
As one involved, I did agree that at the present the 500 edit/30 day limit is a reasonable step to prevent what has been a problem - people that have well-intended issues with the article but that do not have a good feel for how difficult is has been to write this topic within WP policies, while they aren't necessarily disruptive, they aren't helping too much at the time. It is also the case there is known organization of people off site to try to influence the WP article and even if that is well-meaning, that's not the way the encyclopedia is build. But at the same time, we do have problems with editors being overly defensive to a point of page ownership and battleground mentality about closing off any avenue of discussion that is not in line with keeping the page in their desired view, which is creating the hostility and the desire of new editors to come and ask about improvements. The 500/30 restriction should clearly stay or at lest until it has time to try out but this also has to be balanced against editors vigoriously trying to blacklist any discussion that they don't want to deal with, to maintain the openness of the process. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Where is the evidence for this alleged off-site organized "campaign" and "collusion" users keep speaking of? There seems to be no such campaign, and that this is a scare tactic and excuse to attack newer users who see the article is (obviously) grossly biased and inaccurate and comment on the discussion page. 50.255.103.205 (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
You have, I assume, heard of reddit and 8chan? (I will not link to specific forums or boards.) Since October, both sites have had many discussion threads devoted to the editing of Gamergate-related Wikipedia articles including discussions about specific editors who they think are opposed or sympathetic to their position. It's not collusion in terms of an organized campaign but there is a lot of criticism, complaining and strategizing of ways to approach editing these articles. It might not be as prominent as it was 6 months ago but it still occurs. But I don't think this information is news to anyone who has spent some time editing this subject. LizRead!Talk!19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"discussions about specific editors / a lot of criticism, complaining and strategizing of ways to approach editing these articles" sounds a lot like ANI/article talk pages. If they're discussing ways to vandalize wikipedia or break the rules that's a different story and we should be prepared - could you copy and paste some quotes if you don't want to link them? 216.155.129.27 (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Mifter's approach is obviously good in general, but there are several extraordinary features of the gamergate issue that require unusual solutions. I have only occasionally glanced at what is going on yet have noticed a large number of new and reactivated accounts who repetitively repeat recently settled issues, and who will not be dissuaded from telling the world their version of gamergate. Almost all such activity is extremely civil, yet unproductive and exhausting for general editors with an interest in the encyclopedia. I have seen several accounts created as early as 2007 with under 500 edits, and which have been reactivated to engage at Talk:Gamergate controversy—AGF says their views should be individually considered with a week spent explaining the intricacies of WP:BLP and WP:RGW to each of them, but that is not possible in practice. Off-wiki campaigning (and WP:ARBGG) has trained activists in how to be civil in the hope of provoking sanctionable responses from editors who defend the articles. I tried a Google search so I could illustrate that without linking to anything too ugly, but got distracted by rationalwiki which has all that is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, damn those editors, coming back to Wikipedia after creating accounts the better part of a decade ago, endeavouring to improve an article that they feel is flawed, within the rules of Wikipedia! Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that WP:CPUSH is within the rules of Wikipedia is the reason that WP:ARBGG was required, and the reason that there are 38 pages of archived talk, all created in the last nine months. Experienced editors with no axe to grind can see that the influx of new and reactivated accounts is nothing to do with "improve an article"—it's to WP:RGW regardless of what the reliable sources say. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The data shows [9] more than half of those "38 pages" were created by the top ten editors, all long-term users, and more than 75% by the top 20. So you're wrong - new and resurrected accounts are not the reason there are 38 pages of archived talk. 168.1.99.201 (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
<removed my own comment because I wasn't AGFing (not to mention I misread his comment as assumed he was counting since the restriction was placed, not before> Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm the admin who place the 500/30 minimum qualification. This discussion is interesting, but other than point any interested readers to what I posted on my User Talk regarding my thoughts, I'm just going to observe for the moment. Zad6815:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree strongly with Guy: the 500/30 bar is the worst possible system except for all the others. In an exceptional situation like this, Zad68's exceptional measures are warranted. Bishonen | talk17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC).
I have merged the two articles, but, since there were two bothers, both economists, Louis Auguste Say and Louis Baptiste Say, I have merged the two articles under the name Louis Auguste Say. I've put a "copied" template on it to indicate where the merged material came from, but it might be easier if an admin would do a history merge of Louis Say and Louis Auguste Say. BMK (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Where do you find Louis-Baptiste Say? There is just Louis Say and then Jean-Baptiste Say, as far as I know. 'Louis Say' is the most commonly used name for Louis, not his full name Louis Auguste, in all the research...Zigzig20s (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Zz20s appears to be correct that their is only one "Louis Say" - the brother is "Jean-Baptiste Say". However, he appears to be incorrect about the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject of the biography, which was clearly (especially given the naming conventions of the time) {Louis Auguste Say", so I remain of the opinion that this is the correct name for the article. If Zz20s's further research doesn't change his mind, it's a simply matter to start a RM. I see no reason for it, however. BMK (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a history merge would be a wise idea because there's a lot of overlapping history at both titles. Graham8706:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
A few minutes ago, This happened. Same pattern as last week. Just a heads up, this guy went off the rails, requiring a complete lockdown of lots of articles related to the middle east in general, and started creating abusive new accounts. It was about this same time of day as well, so expect this to flare up. Extra vigilance needed. I'm heading to bed soon, so letting everyone else know to keep an eye open. --Jayron3204:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ok but according to wiki laws it is international law that if you give 5 reliable sources or more and it is very necessary and not redundant for the article you dont have to ask permission from the editors? or only in wiki english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.140.96 (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
no it is someone who reported about 6 books he gave i do not want to edit in english i asking this since i want to edit in my own country so im asking if this law is also international for what i understood there this law is valid in english i want to know if he is international and valid for all the countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.140.96 (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, okay then. Its as OrangeMike just said above, the rules of all languages of Wikipedia are all pretty much the same, though there are small differences in exact wording, or enforcement of rules. I'm not sure I understand your exact question. I understand you're talking about having 5 sources, but I don't understand what exactly you're trying to do with them? What exactly is the core issue? Sergecross73msg me14:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, 109.253.140.96, the policies and guidelines here aren't laws, much less international laws. Since you are not interested in editing the English Wikipedia, I suggest you pose this question on the Wikipedia in the language you want to edit. Wikipedias are organized according to language used, not by country. This is definitely not a matter for WP:AN. LizRead!Talk!14:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
List of political parties by region - far too specific
Hello, I have noticed that the list of political parties has been divided into continents and even some kind of regions within continents, creating a number of very short articles, some of them not even based on any source (such as List of political parties in Middle Africa by country). I think this system is far too specific and the problem is that you can fit all this information, on all countries on one page which would also allow the readers to compare political systems, unlike it is now. Can someone delete these pages and collate them into one, comprehensive one, please?--109.144.220.183 (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleting them probably wouldn't help anything. The better choice would be to merge them, a process that just requires some copy/pasting with proper attribution, and then redirect the titles. You should be able to do it; merge them as you see fit, and come back here or go to my talk page if you need help with pagemoves, getting around false positives at the abuse filter, or editing pages that are semiprotected, or if you simply aren't sure how to do something. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
WTF? This is an AFD of an AFD. This nomination wasn't transcluded anywhere and hence didn't get any comments or votes. Delete under CSD G6? 103.6.156.167 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
One of my hobbies is fishing out lost AfD nominations, but I only look for ones that at least have active AfD tags, and generally complete the delayed nomination if at all possible. If its just lost in wikipedia talk space, its not doing any harm, and may as well be left there. I guess someone could persue deletion of the nominations if they really want to. Monty84517:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and lok these over, but the usual way to go about this is to just tag the pages for speedy deletion, a process you clearly have some familiarity with, rather than posting a thread here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I agree this needs admin eyes, or at least someone who is a little more careful when reverting than the reporting user, who has in fact been fighting to restore vandalism, apparently unaware they were doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arbitration motion regarding the Infoboxes arbitration case
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
I) Remedy 3.2 of the Infoboxes case is suspended.
II) For a six-month period Gerda Arendt may not add or restore, except for the usual exemptions, an Infobox to any article she did not create, without first either a) obtaining a clear consensus to do so on the article talkpage, or b) her proposal on the article talk page attracting no comments for 72 hours.
III) During this six-month period, she must not, in the opinion of a consensus of administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, disrupt any discussion concerning infoboxes.
IV) Gerda Arendt may be blocked for violation of parts II and III. Any such block shall cause remedy 3.2 to be unsuspended; if this is done, the blocking administrator must make the committee aware.
V) If after six months Gerda Arendt has not been blocked under this motion, remedy 3.2 as well as this motion shall automatically lapse.
One of them even went to object to User talk:Lowercase sigmabot III. It's probably the first time I've seen someone make this kind of complaint at a sinebot :-) I've never understood how to perform rangeblocks properly, but tell me what to block and I'll do it. Nyttend (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
These are BT's huge ranges. An edit filter or semi-protection would be more appropriate than trying to block it. -- zzuuzz(talk)17:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This is going to take edit filter(s) to solve. I made one request, but they have already started adapting behavior. But trying to range block entire /8s, which is what this would take, would cause massive collateral damage. What we really need is a skilled edit filter manager to take this on. Monty84517:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
If you can pinpoint some typical behaviour that would catch their edits then an edit filter would seem like a good option. Sam Walton (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I should also note the IP troll has an edit summary of "tbh not a massive fan". The IP has made me one of its targets (he frequently writes on AN/I, vowing to vandalize my page when the semi-protection is lifted on June 2) and a 48 hour rangeblock won't slow them down.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I voted on the first day, dismissed the banner and yet it still returns... In different colours too... I do tend to move betweens computers frequently, that would cause it to reappear I guess. I don't want to turn them all off but dang they are annoying. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)15:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I voted on the first day, dismissed the banner and yet it still returns... In different colours too... I do tend to move betweens computers frequently, that would cause it to reappear I guess. I don't want to turn them all off but dang they are annoying. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)15:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Please forgive me if this is not the correct place to post this but...
I've recently corrected the title of 'https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Log-Linear_model', by moving the page from 'Log-linear_model' to 'Log-Linear_model', but I think that the 'm' in the title should also be capitalized.
I'm a new user and the system prevented me from making this adjustment.
Maybe a user with more gravitas will assist me in making this amelioration.
Unfortunately, that's often the case: we think we know better than the experts. However, H1395010, I think you misunderstand: when I search the loglinear.pdf for linear, most appearances are "log-linear model", and "Log-linear Model" or "Log-Linear Model" almost always appear in titles, where title case is common and words get capital letters even though they don't in most other cases. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I just made a huge mistake and don't have time to fix it right now
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 was intending to mass delete pages created by a blocked user, but I clicked on the wrong one and mass deleted everything created by User:CookieMonster755 instead. The second I realized my error, I was called into work, I have to go right now and probably won't be free agaion for several hours. Feel free to assault me with many wet fish, but if someone could fix this mess I'd appreciate it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh no... All my wonderful work is gone It's okay Beeblebrox, I forgive you. That was much hours of work though. Hopefully an admin can fix it.... Cheers... CookieMonster755(talk)23:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you everybody . Hopefully this does not have a bad impact on my WMFLabs Xtools review of my article creation log and account statics. CookieMonster755(talk)23:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@CookieMonster755: You may want to check to see if anything was delinked by bots or otherwise while deleted, particularly files which can be de-linked really quickly. Also leaving an appropriate trophy for Beeblebrox. Monty84523:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you everybody, you are wonderful! I understand that anybody even admins can make mistakes ;) Don't stress Beeblebrox, you're discipline has been served ;P Cheers, cheers - CookieMonster755(talk)23:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I also see you restored the files, thank you :) I also made a mistake - I reuploaded a logo that was deleted by accident, but you restored it so there are duplicate logos. Could you please delete the duplicate, here. Thanks CookieMonster755(talk)00:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it quite gets there, it was less than 100 pages. Gotta be at least a couple thousand I'd say. Monty84512:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed; the stocks is for when you do something unprecedented, either in its nature (nobody's made that mistake before!) or extent (nobody's made that mistake so spectacularly before!), and this is nothing compared to "I missed that day at target practice". Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that this is a great example of Wikipedia really working together. Someone makes a mistake, and people immediately pitch in and fix it. Thanks to all of you for being fabulously collegial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Quick question/close request for a self-blanked 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.
AfD creator @Rhumidian: quickly blanked the nomination, with the original userspace draft successfully moved to mainspace. I reverted and proposed a procedural speedy keep as a de facto withdrawal, but then Rhumidian cleared everything again. Not going to dawdle at more reverting or anything, I'm just going to request it officially closed here for them.
And for future reference, what is the best course of action here? Revert and NAC or nominate a G7? Thanks. 野狼院ひさしu/t/c08:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems pretty obvious to me that they just wanted to get rid of the leftover redirtect and just did it wrong. Deleted the actual page per U1, deleted the afd per g6, afd cannot be used to delete pages in userspace, and the nominating editor apparently didn't mean to do it in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that guys, Meant to delete the user age space after i redirected the page into the mainspace. I did it wrong. Looks sorted now.Rhumidian (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently there is a renaming discussion in progress at Talk:Paraguayan War#Requested move 25 May 2015. As previous requests have resulted in some bad tempered discussions and the latest addition is a rather obvious personal attack on the proposer (myself) [11] I am requesting admin oversight to keep things on track. WCMemail20:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to me like a personal attack to be honest. Also, if I may, this war is universally known throughout the Spanish-speaking world as Guerra de la Triple Alianza. No one calls it "Guerra de Paraguay" or whatever (although I suppose this might be the same situation as Varusschlacht vs Battle of Teutoburg Forest). And your proposal doesn't make sense - is there another Triple Alliance somewhere in the world? I don't understand the "South America" DAB part of the proposed title. §FreeRangeFrogcroak21:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
No there hasn't been as far as I know and it is pretty much known in the English speaking world as the War of the Triple Alliance. In Brazil, its known as the Paraguayan War; those advocating the current name tend to be members of Project Brazil. I added the moniker (South America) as the closer of the last request based his close on the premise it could be confused with other "Triple Alliances" (although confusingly there are at least 3 separate Wars known variously as the Paraguayan War in English). The previous discussion was stupidly bad tempered and I don't wish to see a repeat. WCMemail21:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) @WCM: Incidentally, requests for oversight are supposed to be emailed directly to oversight-en-wp@wikimedia.org, not posted in this (or any other) forum. Erpertblah, blah, blah...03:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Through the use of the {{Special:PrefixIndex}} markup, two new page-move backlogs have been created. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Misplaced XfDs is an attempt to list misplaced XfD nominations and old deletion nominations that need to be moved to the correct XfD board. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Old AFC submissions is a list of drafts in the WT:AFC subspace that need to be moved to the draft namespace.
No, these are not admin backlogs as any autoconfirmed user can move pages. This message is being posted here just for publicity. Copyedits or improvements to text are welcome. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I was just about to start work when I thought: "Hang on, why can't these be done by a bot?". Has that been discussed anywhere? It would save a lot of Effingham and maybe Blindingham too. - Pointillist (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Acid rap is an example of why a human might need to be involved. Acid rap was merged into Esham in 2009 (diff), with the original Acid rap page becoming a redirect. Since then Acid Rap has been created, about Chance the Rapper's album. The current status of Acid rap is that sometimes it redirects to Acid Rap, sometimes to Esham. So where should the historical votes for deletion page be moved to: AfD/Acid rap, AfD/Esham, or what? - Pointillist (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It's now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acid rap (0th nomination). Most of the VFD subpages were bot-moved to become AFD subpages when VFD got renamed to AFD, but for whatever reason, Acid rap wasn't. Since WP:AFD/Acid rap was the second, the VFD ought to come before it, but moving both pages would be unhelpful, so I just gave it a sequential name and threw a hatnote onto WP:AFD/Acid rap. Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Dafuq? Votes for deletion from years back. That makes no sense. Just nuke them as past relevance and move on. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Not all of them. The VFD for Acid rap was a normal nomination that resulted in a solid consensus to keep; deleting it would be as unhelpful as deleting a "keep" AFD from much more recent times. We can delete the ones that never went anywhere (I deleted the three in the next section), but a human is needed to distinguish between them and the actual debates that are somehow in the wrong spot. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
But they were not done. I think these moves should obviously be done so as to comply with current XfD naming conventions. It is pointless to start an RM for this. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I suspect they were not done because there is absolutely no reason to do it other than a slavish devotion to current naming standards, which did not exist at the time. This is among the most pointless requests I can recall in my decade or so on Wikipedia. And that is saying something. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The malformed AfC requests needed looking at, but these ancient deletion pages should just be nuked, if a bot can't move them for whatever reason. Anyone who needs to rely on a 10-year old VfD in a discussion has already lost the argument. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@JzG: It's inappropriate to invoke WP:NOBODYCARES here since the AFD and MFD processes use suffixes such as "(2nd nomination)", "(3rd nomination)" etc in their page titles, which means that pages in the wrong namespace (articles in MfD, miscellaneous pages in AfD, and everything in VFD) are likely to go lost or unaccounted for when new nominations of those pages are made. 103.6.156.167 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
See WP:BURO. If the last debate was back when it was Votes For Deletion, it's probably too long ago to be relevant and in any case people can look it up on the Talk page. And there is nothing stopping non-admins moving them if they feel they must. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Writing on behalf of my Client Julian Gardner who has a Wikipedia Page Julian Gardner (Poker Player), I'd like to request that the (poker player) section is removed. Despite starting out life as a professional gambler Julian moved into financial services (hedge fund) in mid 2000's and philanthropy in 2014, and would prefer to be referred to as either of these. His Children are coming of age where they have access to the internet and he would rather not be seen as a gambler in their eyes.
Let's see, is he notable concerning hedge funds? Well "'Julian Gardner' 'hedge funds' has only 142 Google hits, so the answer there would seem to be "no". is he notable as a philanthropist? Well "'Julian Gardner' philanthropist" has 221 Google hits, so he doesn't seem to be very prominent there. What about "'Julian Gardner' poker"? What? 202,000 Google hits!!! Well, I guess that answers your question, Ldv89 on behalf of your client Julian Gardner, he's notable because he is (or was) a power player, not because of his involvement with hedge funds or philanthropy. I guess he's just going to have to live with that until he does something notable in some other field. BMK (talk) 09:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
BTW, your edits to the article Julian Gardner (poker player) were reverted by another editor, but I would have reverted them myself, since you have an obvious conflict of interest in regard to Julian Gardner, as you represent him in some capacity. I'll also note that you have not complied with our terms of use regarding paid editing, which requires that you clearly state your conflict oin your talk page, and on the article talk page in question. BMK (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Obviously the whitewashing is not acceptable. If he didn't want to be known as a gambler, repeatedly entering high-stakes televised gamgbling contests was not the way to go about it. On the other hand, is he really hat notable at all? Not sure we should even have this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it really that hard for you people to say "Apologies but the reliable sources and references show the article title is correct in its current form. Also, we do have policies regarding editing with a COI and/or pay. Please read them before editing further on Julian Gardner. " No you go right for the snark and stand-offishness that is killing editor retention. 129.9.75.248 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh pfffft. People get the idea that they can control "their" articles on Wikipedia and try to edit them or send their representatives to do the dirty work, and I'm absolutely sick of it. There's a hell of a lot of promotionalism still in our articles, and I take a zero-tolerance policy toward it. Let those folks pay for a website or use one of the social networking sites that doesn't care about its content. BMK (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Last time I looked we had remarkably little difficulty "retaining" editors who come here to promote their clients or employers. If anything, we have the devil's own job stopping them. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wgolf, and what did these users reply when you asked them about these edits, as you are required to do before reporting them to the administrators' noticeboard? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉01:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Well I wasn't reporting the users but rather what is going on with persondatas and why they are now being removed, but upon clicking on one of the talk pages it appears there was a notice to why they were removed it looks like. Wgolf (talk) 01:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An arbitration case regarding OccultZone and other editors has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
User:OccultZone is banned indefinitely from English Wikipedia. They may appeal the ban after twelve months, and every six months thereafter.
User:OccultZone is also topic banned from making edits related to a) sexual assault or b) crime on the Indian Subcontinent, both broadly construed.
User:OccultZone is indefinitely limited to operating a single account.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have no idea as to whether this requires any response at all or if this is the right place to bring this up. If anyone thinks not, you have my permission to delete this or move it someplace else.
On the one hand, of course admins at wiki.riteme.site have no control over what happens at meta.wikimedia.org, which argues for me not even bringing this up here, but on the other hand, at least some of the admins involved might like a heads up so that they can pop over to meta and respond. I am just going to leave this here in good faith and let wiser heads decide what, if anything, needs to be done.
Well, as a practical matter, we can't really prevent a banned editor from coming back if they return with an entirely new persona. Little threat of that happening here, given he's still on his very same obsessive talking points from five years ago. Also, I am not sure what led to Abd's ban here, but he's talking a lot of sense there that is just falling on deaf ears. Ultimately however, what Kumioko/Reguyla does on meta isn't something I find concerning here. Resolute19:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure that the Arbs and admins and editors whom he regularly harassed here with comments posted by sock after sock after sock (I don't think anyone has a complete list of them) are too unhappy that he's found a place to vent. In any case, there's nothing to be done about it, since it's way out of en.wiki's purview. I'm sure if he becomes a problem on Meta they'll deal with it -- or not, that's their problem. BMK (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion between Kumioko and Abd is absolutely fascinating though. I forget why Abd was banned (some veteran or other may remember) especially as WP:BANNED has been deleted, but their comments to Kumioko are certainly interesting. Blackmane (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It looks like I am now a target for accusations/criticism:[19][20] I was on USENET. After that, nothing anyone says about me online has the slightest effect otther than entertaining or boring me, dpending on the originality. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you haven't lived until you've been the subject of your very own Usenet attack thread, as I was many years ago... --IJBall (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You should go through the OTRS process. Basically, you need to demonstrate that you're the author, you need to grant a suitable permissions release, and you need to send an email containing these two parts. The latter is simple: pick one of the licenses given at WP:ICTIC, and in your email, say something like "I permit this image to be used under the terms of [insert license name here]", or "I release this image into the public domain". Bear in mind that all of these licenses permit everyone (not just Mr Frye the younger) to modify and copy the image for whatever purpose they want (including commercially), without any obligations to you other than attributing you as the author. If you're fine with that, great; if not, please don't go any farther. Authorship demonstration: has this image been published anywhere before? And if so, is there a place where it was published with attribution to you? If so, and if it's online, the easiest route is to obtain a link to such a webpage and include it in your email, or if it's only offline, you could provide a citation to the publication in the body of your email, or even better, scan or take a picture of that part of the publication, and attach it to your email. Finally, if possible, you should send the email from an address that's linked to you: for example, if you have a website, send an email to permissions-enwikimedia.org from an address that's given on the website. All this being said The email can be pretty simple. For example, using owner@akrusso.com, send an email saying "As shown at http://www.example.com/russo.htm, I am the author of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:William_F._Frye.jpg, and I release it under the CC-BY 3.0 License." Finally If you find this confusing, or you want more help, go to my talk page and leave a note, and I'll be happy to try to help you. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#ADDgrammar, brought by the valiant Brianhe and please see admin Yunshui's comments there. SPI case is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Factsonlyplease39. Displaying my ignorance here, but is there some way to "roll back" the edits (and new article creation) by this sockfarm, or do we really have to work through what appears to be maybe (?) a hundred articles? The number not at all clear to me at this point, but this looks like days and days of work and i would rather not spend my WP time cleaning up a pile of dogshit this big. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I've glanced over about 40 of them, and almost all of them fall into the category of just about notable CEOs, with lots of puffery, women's baseball players from c.1950 with very few sources, or other people/books by people that are generally spammy and questionably notable. Although lots of the CEOs do seem to just about meet Wiki standards, and the baseball playes do meet WP:NBASEBALL, I would also support deleting the lot, and then they can recreated properly without the spam.
Oppose Having looked through loads of them, it seems there are some good, notable articles, and some sports one that pass relevant guidelines (WP:GRIDIRON, WP:NBASEBALL, WP:TENNIS). Also, lots of the bad ones are up for AfD now, and seems quite a few of them are being cleaned up well by editors. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Note I'm more than a little suspicious (based on technical and some of the behavioural evidence) that these socks do in fact belong to Ronn Torossian's 5WPR company (see previous discussion here and this SPI). I'd be grateful if someone more familiar with this group's modus operandi could take a look. Yunshui雲水12:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In November, a Request for Comments asked whether Ayurveda, a form of traditional Indian healing, should be categorized as Pseudoscience. In December, I closed the RFC, concluding, for reasons that I listed in the closure, that it should not be, because it was developed at least a millennium before the concept of modern science, and was therefore neither science nor pseudoscience. I was asked today (4 June) by User:Kww to review my close. Kww noted that multiple editors taking part in the RFC were sockpuppets of User:OccultZone. I concur that the outcome of the RFC was corrupted by sockpuppetry, with multiple copies of the same editor offering the same arguments. I have stricken my own close and the !votes of the sockpuppets. I am aware that I edited an archive, that says not to edit it, but this appears to have been a case of WP:IAR in response to an extraordinary misconduct.
The RFC outcome is therefore cancelled. There was never a valid consensus of the community that Ayurveda is not pseudoscience. I do not plan to perform another close. One possibility would be for another closer to close the RFC; however, some editors in good standing were influenced in their !votes by the sockpuppets. My recommendation is that a new RFC be opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd second the proposal to open a second RfC. The original one was tainted not only by OccultZone and his alternate accounts, but also by what appears to have been limited participation on the part of those who do not actively edit Ayurveda-related articles. Kurtis(talk)03:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean that there was too much outside participation, or that there was too little outside participation? Outside participation is invited by a bot. The amount of it varies greatly from RFC to RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I actually came to revisit my post here, because I think I phrased it poorly. What I meant is that I think the majority of participants were biased in favour of Ayurveda, and were therefore not equipped to determine whether it can be considered a pseudoscience in an impartial manner. Kurtis(talk)07:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a procedural comment — when you close something and then come to believe that it shouldn't have been closed that way, you're just almost always free to change things, regardless of the "this is an archive" bit; the only exception I can think of is if the discussion's been reviewed, because you can't overturn the review's decision yourself. Not a good case of IAR, because you followed the rules :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The socks are irrelevant to the discussion. Even with full protection the WP:LEDE now says "Modern ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific.[15]" We don't need another RfC. QuackGuru (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Nyttend that Robert McClenon is free to withdraw his close, especially in light of the sockpuppet accusations. (The closure review I closed did not reach a decision either way to endorse or overturn the close.)
I also agree with Robert McClenon and Kurtis that a fresh RfC untainted by sockpuppetry would be helpful in resolving the question of whether Ayurveda should be categorized as psuedoscience. Cunard (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Technically, I did not start a new RfC. I was making an edit request. I was initially against starting a RfC yesterday. I now support starting the RfC to move the discussion forward. QuackGuru (talk) 17:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
QuackGuru is correct that he did not start a new RFC, in that he didn't put the RFC tag in it. I thought that he had forgotten to put the tag in, so I put the tag in, so it is now an RFC. You can blame him or blame me. In any case, I think that we are in agreement that the previous RFC was invalidated by sock-puppetry, and the cancellation of its closure after the fact was appropriate, and the new RFC is the way forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I would argue that the socks affected a lot more than just that RfC, so the article as a whole - not just one category - would benefit from fresh attention. bobrayner (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NOTICE: Persondata has been deprecated and is subject to removal in the near future
As administrators, you are likely to receive questions about persondata in the next few days. Template:Persondata has been deprecated and the template and input data are subject to removal from all bio articles in the near future. For those editors who entered accurate data into the persondata templates of Wikipedia biography subjects, you are advised to manually transfer that data to Wikidata before the impending mass deletion occurs in order to preserve accurate data. Here are three examples of Wikidata for notable athletes: Ryan Lochte, Mary Wayte and Dara Torres. I'm not an expert, but I have received a crash course in Wikidata over the last three days, so if you have any practical questions about the persondata removal, transfer to Wikidata, etc., please ping me. I have found that User:Jared Preston is also a Wikidata administrator and has been a valuable resource for answering "how to" questions about Wikidata over the last several days. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Good to know. In the meantime, can someone point me to a list of articles with information to be ported to Wikidata? Or should we just start going down the "what transcludes" list at Template:Persondata? bd2412T20:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
"Impending mass deletion"...words you don't like to read. It would be comforting if this all appeared to be a well thought-out plan instead an announcement that there is an emergency need "to preserve accurate data". Why the rush? LizRead!Talk!20:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Why is a template with that amount of usage being deleted at all without an accompanying plan to migrate the data? What is going on around here, have people taken leave of their ability to think things through to the end? Is there an equivalent of a temporary injunction to stop the deletion? BMK (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Well the shortest bios of living people will soon have a massive change then-currently the number 1,000th has 797 bytes Wikipedia:Database reports/Shortest biographies of living people-kind of a shame for this reason as only a year ago the number 1,000th has 711 bytes-in other words the articles keep on getting longer there, either way looks like a massive drop will happen! Wgolf (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, the "Rough Plan" which resulted from the RfC was that deletion of the template was not to take place until after all the data had been migrated, but some deprecation hard-liners are trying to force it to be done immediately, under the rubric "deprecated is deprecated". BMK (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I am having a very difficult time believing that this can reasonably be construed as 'delete good information collected over many years without saving it somewhere' That's just an absurd construction, and an absurd action. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Quickly browsing the link MarnetteD provided, I'm surprised at some of the names who opposed the deletion of the template. They include some tech-savvy names, the ones who know "deprecated" does not mean "has been killed with fire" but "still works, but not supported & any bug reports will be laughed at, so you are strongly encouraged to stop using it". Unless a reasonable time is given for this data review & migration, the result will be a very unpleasant mess & the people who have been beaten up over Visual Editor will find immense schadenfreude in. -- llywrch (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Could I ask for some admin oversight on Cynefin. I'm personally involved as the article concerns a model I created. The article was not created by me (for obvious reasons) and most of the work has been done by other editors. I've added references or made factual changes as needed. Recently changes were made by an SPA account (other that two changes to Cynefin his draft articles both elaborate his own organisation and model neither with third party references) took a single case for a software product and attempted to link it as criticism of Cynefin, an extension of a series of campaigns he is conducting in social media. I've done my best to play it by the book and summarised the issues here which seemed to deal with the matter. But now we have another inexperienced editor who has overruled by consensus on Welsh People joining in without engaging on the talk page commentary and making a deliberately derogatory change from scholar to salesman. Dave Snowden has also been subject to periodic attack by sock puppets so I am used the the perils of being an active editor on wikipedia who doesn't hide his identity. But I realise the dangers of being personally involved hence the request for some oversight. If anyone thinks my editors have breeched a line then please tell me. ----SnowdedTALK06:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
No, you've not violated anything (except the spelling rules for "breached" :-) in your actions. The statement "In 2014 doubts were raised regarding the solidity of the approach when the IRC" is definitely not supported by http://www.irc.nl (in other words, it's a hoax), and while the other source mentions you repeatedly, it never addresses the concept of "Cynefin". Either the stuff dependent on the second source is a hoax (i.e. the article never touches on the subject) or it requires original research; I can't tell, because I'm not familiar with the subject, but it doesn't particularly matter because both are prohibited. I've left warnings for the other two editors and protected it for 24 hours, lest another editor come along and attempt to restore the hoaxing. Please re-report if problems continue after protection expires. Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks I appreciate the intervention. Apologies for the spelling - mild dyslexia, if the spell checker does not pick it up neither do I! ----SnowdedTALK19:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Lightbreather arbitration case:
Lightbreather and Scalhotrod are placed under a temporary full interaction ban (sans the usual exceptions). They may comment on each other only on matters directly affecting this case and only on the relevant Workshop or Arbitration case talk pages. They may comment on allegations of off-wiki misconduct only by email and such emails must be directed only to the Arbitration Committee. This temporary restriction may be enforced by any clerk or administrator by means of immediate redaction of potentially problematic material and blocks of up to seventy-two hours. Appeals may be made only by the sanctioned user(s), are to be made to the Arbitration Committee only by email. This temporary restriction will expire when the case closes and supersedes any other provisions regarding permissibility of comments.
Experienced editors are actually allowed to close RfCs, but should only do ones that don't require an admin action. Sam Walton (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Right. There are actually no formal rules for closing discussions. Most discussions don't even require closure and closures can be performed by any uninvolved editor, not just admins. With RfCs though I would think uninvolved editors can review and close them where necessary. They don't even necessarily have to determine the consensus. If they're stale, just deactivate them. Swarmwe ♥ our hive18:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Per all of the above, closing discussions is not an admin function. Any experienced, uninvolved editor may close any discussion. If an admin action is needed specifically, ping the admins here at the board. But if something doesn't need protecting, deleting, or blocking, just do it. It doesn't need an admin. --Jayron3218:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Basically. Only big difference is there is a larger variety of subject matters and possible outcomes, many that don't require the mop to carryout. Many are also really looking for a conclusion, whereas many NACs in the AN space are discussions that have run their course, with the close just wrapping it up, whereas RFCs will usually ask for direct judgement of Consensus. (AN related NACs can do that, but typically those are the ones closed by admins) Monty84518:57, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Yikes – in looking a couple of those, I wouldn't even know where to start. It looks to me like the "Macbook" one is "no consensus" (and there seems to be not be much headway on the associated follow-up RM discussion either...). The first one especially is a massive tl;dr discussion, that should probably only be tackled by one of the editors who's already gone through it... Bottom line: I can definitely see why these ones stay open for months at a time – they're not "easy"!! --IJBall (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The Meghan Trainor one has already been closed at the Talk page, so at least one of those can be "closed to go"... (I'm not going to do that one myself, because I'd like to see someone else do it, so I can see the process.) --IJBall (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
General thoughts – This probably gets back to the issue of whether AN and ANI should have official "Clerks". I gather such a proposal was already shot down, but I think that was years ago, and I wonder if it's a proposal that should be revisited?... --IJBall (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I dunno – if you have a "title", it's actually like having a "job", and you'll take it more seriously? (Isn't this basic psychology?... I wouldn't know – I never took psych!) I can only speak for me, but I only "pick" at ANI closes on days that I don't have a lot of time to devote to Wiki (certainly not enough time to do proper "content creation"), and closing ANI threads is something I can do relatively quickly and painlessly when I want to blow off steam. OTOH, if I were an "official clerk" (and I ain't saying I wanna be!!...), I'd take it more seriously, and do things like take the much more time-consuming plunge into the backlog mentioned in this thread... Anyway, that's my $0.02... But I dunno if there's any interest in reviving the AN/ANI "clerk" proposal. --IJBall (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Generally the question becomes what will the clerk do, that a non-clerk can't already do now, and how will that make the process more efficient. The obvious answer would be to allow clerks to close things, and then have admins do any necessary tool use. But in the absence of a strong consensus in favor of having admins defer to the decisions of the clerks on certain matters, the admin remains fully responsible for the tool use, and thus must repeat any work the clerk did to verify the outcome is correct and thus that the tool use is correct. I wonder if we could achieve such a consensus for some less controversial admin tasks, but I don't think AN or AN/I would be a good place to trial such move. Monty84519:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I think lots of admins stay out of RfC closures deliberately, for a variety of reasons: Some RfCs have been opened to make a WP:POINT and then got a lot of comments which have only a tangential bearing on the matter, that makes it difficult to evaluate what it is about and what the actual outcome; some RfCs have a lot of different opinions, with very long explanations of each, and many people (including admins) wouldn't have, or take, the time to read it all, that leaves the discussion open for a considerable time; and many RfCs have been hotly debated, and whatever the result assessed by the closer, the whole thing will go through closure review right here. I've been a little busy IRL last week, but I'll have a look at some of the long-text RfCs next week when I'm free. However, I couldn't close the CfD which has been open for 98 days because I !voted in it. But I made a suggestion at the pertaining thread. Kraxler (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I only close ANI cases in a couple of situations: a) an admin has taken action on the original complaint (a page is protected, an editor blocked), b) if there is a case where proposals are floated but none has a consensus and the thread is stale and likely to be archived soon or c) the OP has withdrawn the complaint or says that the situation is resolved.
It seems like there are a fair number of NACs of RfCs that bounce back to WP:AN (initial alphabet here) because at least one editor wants an admin to review the closure, on the assumption, I guess, that the outcome would be different. LizRead!Talk!20:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Back to the specific issue at hand – I personally can't close the "USSTATION" RfC's because I voted so I'm "involved", but they were opened by Dicklyon who's subsequently been blocked for socking, and I don't think there's been a follow-up reply in weeks, so I think all of those can be closed. My guess is that they can pretty much all be closed as "No consensus" (though there may have been a general consensus for "[Stationname] station" with a lowercase "s" for "station" for article titles, I can't remember) or closed in the direction of the WP:USSTATION guideline conforming in its totality (i.e. with no exceptions, like there have been in the past) to WP:AT. FWIW. --IJBall (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The backlog at the head of the page was close to zero and then a bunch more got added. When they are listed on the top of this page, they get dealt with - unless they are the kind that requires the patience of Job to unpick a 63kb argument on which shade of blue an infobox should be. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've done what I can with the RfC's backlog (thanks also to: Stephan Schulz, Esquivalience and Alsee!). Guy had actually already closed a number of these on May 26, and it just hadn't been logged here. I closed a couple more "easy" ones. The rest fall in to two broad categories: 1) complicated ones that are going to require an Admin (or someone far more experienced with these than me!) – some of these look to this untrained eye as "no consensus" cases, but other ones will require a deeper look; and 2) those that have had comments within the last couple of weeks and thus aren't really "stale" enough to close yet. --IJBall (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I looked at that one. My reading of the situation was that the basic consensus was for "No parameter (inclusion)" in those cases where there was "no religion" (e.g. agnostic, athiest, or areligious). I'd be willing to close that one, but only if I get some confirmation from others that my reading of this one is correct. (And, if my reading of that one is correct, I'd think its consensus would likely extend beyond BLPs.) --IJBall (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much. The root of the problem, IIRC, is a small group of people trying to crowbar in their assertion that atheism is a religion, which view is clearly rejected. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Our original problem was, specifically, a small group of people trying to crowbar in their assertion that atheism is a religion into the BLPs of politicians, presumably to influence voters. Those editors appear to have abandoned that effort. Now I have another problem; when I wrote the RfC I clearly specified that "this RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures", but the threaded discussion (with far fewer participants) was unanimously in favor of removing "religion = None" from the infoboxes of fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. Unless an uninvolved closer evaluates those comments and writes in the closing statement that there is a consensus concerning those other pages I need to post a new RfC to determine consensus. Which I don't mind doing, of course; I just need to know. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Guy Macon: you have specifically asked for an Admin to close this RfC (in several places) – would you be OK with a (semi-)experienced non-Admin editor closing it instead? (I get the impression that a number of Admins have voted in it and so are "involved", and those that haven't may not want to deal with the hassle of closing this one...) --IJBall (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
ANRFC's "backlog" is artificially created by a few edits like this one. We have one or two editors who have appointed themselves the unnecessary task of listing 80% to 90% (ninety percent!) of all expired RFCs on that page, including RFCs that have no actual content or whose consensus is so blindingly obvious that it's stupid to ask some other editors to some waste time writing, "100% of respondents vehemently agreed both with each other and the major relevant policies, so I guess that's consensus". An actual majority don't need a formal close by anyone, much less by an admin. If you want to stop having a backlog at ANRFC, it's easily solved: Just create a rule that anyone listing an RFC must either have participated in it, or actually asked the participants if they wanted to have the discussion listed for formal closure (and not listed it unless there is at least one response by a participant that approves of listing it). This would take us back to the days when not only (almost) "anyone can edit", but (almost) "anyone can be assumed to be capable of figuring out the consensus for the discussions they participate in". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
One problem, WhatamIdoing, with RfC is the same as most maintenance discussions including for example, AfD and RfA: most voters are drive-by, they don't return to see how the debate is develping. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Some voters are drive-by, but there is almost always someone watching an RFC – and if it's ever true that nobody is watching the discussion, then I'm sure you'll agree with me that posting a closing statement is a complete and utter waste of time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I'll reiterate again: MOST voters are drive-by, they don't return to see how the debate is develping. They fly by, dropping their comments like pigeons flying over the crowd at Trafagar Square, and often with about as much intelligence. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
And I'll reiterate again, too: If you're not watching the page, then a closing statement that you never read brings you no benefit at all. As far as those fly-by !voters are concerned, a closing statement is a complete waste of time. So why bother writing it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment How is it that an AN/I thread leading to a judgemental result with regard to a living editor can be closed in two hours and without comment by the editor concerned while an RfC can be left open for two months even though the thread's concern may be limited to an aspect of content? GregKaye09:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Quite a few of the backlogged items are done. You could help by marking them done in the backlog list, and maybe cruising the project lookign for others. Oh, and anything with fewer than five or six people opining, that has remained open for more than 60 days, where debate has tailed off over a month ago and the matter is of no importance? Feel free to non-admin close it as "moot, due to passage of time, please feel free to start a new RfC is issues remain" or some such. Guy (Help!) 20:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
IIRC, some years back WP:AN had a table showing the number of tasks of various kind awaiting admin attention, with color-coding indicating extent of backlogs in each category (CSDs in various categories, unclosed AFDs, RMs, unblock request, unanswered 3RR and RFPP reports etc). Is such a consolidated list still available somewhere, or is my memory faulty? Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Can't vouch for when and where I recall seeing them, but I am thinking of tables like the ones here but more comprehensive. They provide an admin with a few minutes on their hand a quick guide as to where their attention may be best directed. Abecedare (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Those are certainly the type of tables that I recall. I too will lurk for now, and possibly steal/personalize the design at some point. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
As an admin, I would do a lot more for the backlogs, but I won't until someone will fix some of the scripts that sem-automate some processes, such as, for example, closing AfD. I really like the challenge of closing some of those AfD that even seasoned admins won't touch, but so long as it would take me 20 minutes with my slow INternet and the incredibly slow Wikipedia server (often 5 mins to load a single Wikipedia page or even 'show preview' ) just to mess with all the templates/transclusions to close one, I'd rather be doing something else. All of our most useful scripts and tools were developed by volunteers and are available to admins through extensions such as Twinkle, but many of those editors have long since retired and no longer maintain theier scripts. I firmly believe that with all its millions of surplus $$ it's time the WMF started adopting some of these tools and commit themselves to maintaining them. I hear some WMF employees/contractors complaining that there are no budgets for this kind of thing. I'm afraid I do not and cannot believe this for an instant. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
In the 2015-2016 financial year the Wikimedia Foundation plans to spend $28.9 million on engineering and another $12.6 million on community engagement. (Signpost Coverage) Perhaps somewhere in those budgets the foundation can find the time and resources to create and maintain scripts critical to Wikipedia. This seems significantly more productive than converting the tiny village of Esino Lario (population 772) into an internet connected center for Wikimania. Winner 42Talk to me!02:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
What we'll probably get is a bunch of "improvements" in the way of new "features" that no one asked for, that no one really wants, that will be poorly implemented and turned on without notice, that you can't opt out of, and that someone will have to write code to remove from your account. That's been the pattern, anyway. BMK (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I didn't go into more detail in my post above, but I have to admit that Winner 42 and BMK echo my opinions entirely. Not to mention the WMF junkets that are slid into the expense accounts of the many, many, many departments of the WMF. The cost of just one round-trip flight across a couple of states for one telecommuting contractor to spend a day in the office in SF would cover a lot of the cost of examining the exasperating problems with scripts, gadgets, and tools, and of course those software solutions that nobody wants. Like any NGO or non-profit, one thing the WMF is extremely good at is wasting donors' money. Until admins get more of the reliable kind of tools they need, and the sooner the WMF can wake up to the need of WP:ACTRIAL, the sooner we will see a serious reduction in backlogs and a pool of active admins who can cope with them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius:, I'm not 100% sure that all the scripts need fixing, but on installing the script for AfD closures recommended by User:Nakon I now realise that for some reason all the scripts in my User:Kudpung/vector.js have stopped working. Is this due to some MediaWiki 'upgrade' I didn't hear about?. Using FireFox 37.0.2 on OSX 10.10.3. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not just you Kudpung, I was away for a few months and I came back to find that some scripts and gadgets don't work any more and that includes the delsort/close afd/admin dashboard stuff as far as I can remember. —SpacemanSpiff20:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm relieved to hear that SpacemanSpiff. I've also noticed that since yesterady, among other things, PopUps have stopped working too although the sorely missed Wikimarkups have magically reappeared at the bottom of my editing window. None of my other scripts are working although I have checked all my preferences. Perhaps we must take Mr. Stradivarius up on his kind offer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Side note: The WMF is creating a dedicated dev team whose main purpose is to help out with things that are important to admins and other power users, but that the community isn't maintaining well on its own. Anyone can list broken user scripts or other ideas in the brainstorming list at m:Community Tech project ideas. The idea is to complement, rather than usurp, the volunteer tech efforts, so if you write scripts or bots or are interested in becoming a MediaWiki hacker, then you may want to follow those discussions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
That sounds like a very good place to list the non-working scripts. @Kudpung and SpacemanSpiff: If you can figure out exactly which scripts aren't working, and post on that page saying how they used to work, and how they don't work any more, I'll be happy to take a look at them. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪12:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
(Kudpung: having said that, though, I think that first we should take a look at your vector.js page first, as it's become complicated enough that the problems could just as well be there as in the individual scripts.) — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪12:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Mr. Stradivarius, I believe users with admin rights are able to edit other users' vector.js pages. In which case I have no objection to you hacking around i mine . It would serve the common good. Thank you for your help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Depending on how editors feel, we can include up to 3 admin closers if it is too much for one. I saw your post but don't think being a sports fan would matter if the person is uninvolved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh it matters insofar there is plenty of ridiculous logic being spewed around the discussion. I'm somewhat concerned some are trying to force editors to use specific pronouns on the talk page, and are threatening sanctions using a very unique interpretation of the discretionary sanctions. How would,one get a clarification on this? It's clearly an attempt to chill speech.69.143.188.200 (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Good morning everyone. I've been seeing a bit more lately that on AfD votes, page moves, and general votes for consensus a lot of time the nominator will state their nomination then vote right below it.
Delete this article. It is a bunch of crap -User X
*Support per nom. -User X
I remember many years ago seeing some policy that said people shouldn't be doing this as it is in a sense "voting for yourself". Does anyone know where it specifically says this? Point of order, I am not stating anything about a particular user who has done this, I just am curious where the policy is so I can link it on my user page. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is a specific policy on the subject, but the key is avoiding confusion, per nom suggests the nominator is someone else, and its a second voice being added to the discussion, which is bad. Often people will say just leave it to the closer to notice, but its still frowned upon. Note though that Support as nom. -User X is much more common, is rarely objected to, and in some cases, such as unsigned RFC proposals, is necessary to make it clear who is even proposing something. Monty84515:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Might you be looking for Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? It's not a policy per se but an essay that some users refer to in AfD discussions. Support per nom/user is used to state that someone shares the same view without having to restate it again, although some find it less convincing if the original opinion is not policy based. Fuebaey (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it would make a lot more sense to say Delete as nominator. It should be very clear to the closer. Chillum17:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It was not a deletion discussion OberRanks was referring to, it a was move discussion, so "Support [move] as nom" would be the equivalent of "Delete as nom" in a deletion discussion. BMK (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@OberRanks: Please don't be disingenuous, this didn't just pop into your head randomly. Your inquiry comes immediately after a disagreement between us expressed on my talk page [21] and on two article talk pages. [22], [23] Your pretense that your question is not about "any particular user" is just that, a pretense. I expected more in the way of intellectual honesty from you, and I am honestly disappointed. BMK (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Uhhhh, yeah....I was curious where the policy was because yours was about the fifth case I've seen in the past few weeks where the nominator put a vote right below their nomination. But I wasn't "reporting" anyone to the ANI and didn't mention you or the votes you're conducting in anyway....you did that. Try WP:AGF a bit and have a great night. -OberRanks (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
So if someone "reminded" you of a policy you'd "forgotten", you're saying that you wouldn't have posted that on the talk page discussions, in another attempt to convince me to "merge back" my "Support as nom" vote back into the opening statement? Just so you know, I'm not in the market to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, either. (And, BTW, RMs have been known to be open for all sorts of reasons, so it's not a foregone conclusion that the nominator is in favor of the move.) BMK (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I keep a list of useful policy links here. If we ever locate one which spells out the format for voting/page move/afd pages, it would be a welcome addition. -OberRanks (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
There isn't one that says what you're remembering. The good news is that these are closed by real humans, who are generally smart enough to notice that the nom is !voting, even if the editor incorrectly writes "per nom" rather than "as nom". You don't really need to worry about it, because it won't change the outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment I think that the important thing is that editors are being open and honest and see no problem in adding a reference such as "Support as nom, ...". I would find it a violation of honesty as well as third person arogance if a nominator were to wilfully write, "Support per nom, ...". This to me quite humerously presents the view that "I now cite myself". Especially later in threads I think that it can be useful to give a first comment of support as "Support as nom, ..." as this gives an appropriate introduction for the supportive comment to follow. GregKaye08:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't remember. Found it sometime ago. But I just checked the "What Links here" for that page and saw it's linked from User talk:Graham87/Import, where that user seems to be offering some explanation. Are you sure with the deletion? 103.6.159.179 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "are you sure with the deletion?" Could you clarify? Perhaps you mean "are you sure you should have deleted it"; to that I say yes, I think it's better with the lesser warning than with the lesser and the greater warnings. Perhaps you're not familiar with MW pages (if you are, I apologise) — MediaWiki default pages, including MW:Importtext, are always here: we can't get rid of them without significantly modifying the core software. We can, however, modify them by creating a new page at the same title, and whatever's in the newly created page will always override the default page. It's possible to delete the newly created page, but when that happens, we don't lose everything: we just lose the modification. Does this answer your question? Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I regret that I was not able to participate in the discussion, but it was not possible to answer any of your questions since I was blocked. I was not ignoring your questions, nor did I intend to make you think that I was behaving in an uncivil manner by ignoring your comments. If you would like to see the results, rationale, conditions and guidelines that resulted in my request to be unblocked please see User talk:Bfpage/guidelines that administrator Kevin Gorman has created for that purpose. Best Regards,
I didn't think you were ignoring questions when you were blocked. But I do question placing this post on WP:AN rather than on your talk page. It's not an issue that warrants the involvement of administrators. LizRead!Talk!21:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The instructions at the top of this page states: This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators...Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.
It was my intent to convey information to the involved administrators and other interested editors about the block review that occurred in the ANI referenced above.
Comment: I'm stating this here because I prefer not to comment on Bfpage's user talk page or user subpage talk page, and because I think we should both get clarification on this... Via email, I told Kevin Gorman that what is currently number 3 at User talk:Bfpage/guidelines is confusing; it states, "If BF notices that Flyer has edited an article, BF wil[l] refrain from editing that article for at least a week." It's confusing because Bfpage is generally restricted from interacting with me on the talk page. What if Bfpage makes an edit to an article and I contest the edit? If I revert, there is no point in directing Bfpage to the talk page to discuss the matter. After all, number 3 limits the matter to a week and I've noted before that (while Bfpage does a lot of good work for Wikipedia) I'm generally not a fan of Bfpage's editing styles. I am likely to revert Bfpage if it's an article that I care a lot about. So how are Bfpage and I to interact with each other if I revert Bfpage or Bfpage reverts me at an article? If it's a matter that needs discussion, are we to not even try to discuss the matter? Are we to post to the talk page and indirectly respond to each other? And I note "indirectly" because number 5 states, "[...] BF won't directly respond to comments made by Flyer22 unless it's necessary for the flow of the discussion/needed to improve the article, etc."
My other thoughts on this matter.
Furthermore, at User talk:Bfpage/guidelines, Bfpage notes a future WP:ANI thread about our edits when analyzed via the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool. If that happens, I will feel the need to comment on the matter since it will concern me. I noted in the latest WP:ANI thread about Bfpage (linked above in this section), when speaking to Beyond My Ken (BMK), that some of our article overlap is due to our use of WP:STiki, but I was also explicitly clear (my "00:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)" post) that "WP:STiki edits aside, there are edits that show that [Bfpage] clearly followed me to articles. Again, I pointed to this in the previous WP:ANI thread about [Bfpage]." Before that first WP:ANI thread, Bfpage had already acknowledged keeping up with my edits, including on the now-deleted subpage User talk:Bfpage/Following me around, but did not consider that stalking or following me around. It should be clear at User talk:Jytdog/Archive 10#Advice on potential WP:Hounding behavior why I stated that Bfpage was following me around. Until Bfpage showed up at the Sexism article, there was never any interaction between us. Bfpage was not into editing the types of articles I edited, and did not edit nearly as much as Bfpage edits now. And as for lately, I already stated what I had to state on that in the most recent WP:ANI discussion about Bfpage. Having to address this again, when the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool/WP:STiki was never the main thing used to argue that Bfpage was following me around, is unneeded drama and more stress.
Also, regarding Bfpage not replying in the WP:ANI threads... While there was little time for Bfpage to reply in that first one, there was plenty of time for Bfpage to reply in the second one. Bfpage did not comment until after being blocked by Kevin Gorman. And it was very soon after being blocked by Kevin Gorman. In both WP:ANI cases, I feel that Bfpage simply withdrew from the matter, hoping that it would cool down and quickly go away. I often don't know what to think of Bfpage (for example, as mentioned by others, I don't see where Bfpage has ever acknowledged wrongdoing regarding the barnstar matter), and I would rather not have to interact with this editor or discuss anything concerning this editor. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I struck through part of my comment above because I see that Bfpage acknowledged wrongdoing in this section. We clearly do not interpret the second WP:ANI case the same way. I am certain that Bfpage watches some of the articles that I edit, including the Sexual intercourse article, since Bfpage took an interest in editing those articles. Considering that I re-edit those articles, how could Bfpage be unaware of me editing them? Do I think that Bfpage forgot all of the articles that I edit? No, I don't. I have a huge WP:Watchlist and I am still able to see who edits what article, though I may occasionally miss something. Simply put, I will never fully agree with Bfpage on these matters. Anyone thinking or indicating that I am being paranoid, as Bfpage has done, should think again. I have several years of experience dealing with all types of Wikipedia editors, including those who try to interact with me or up the chances of interacting with me when I don't want them to.
I am glad that Bfpage has agreed to stop the egging-on barnstarring/thanking behavior. I am concerned on the same issue that Flyer22 raises. Bfpage said very clearly that she intended to start following Flyer22 around (cannot provide a diff b/c she moved that discussion to a subpage and then had it deleted per User talk:Bfpage/Following me around) -- and then did so, going full-bore into articles I will characterize as being about gender-related disputes, or about reproductive health (call it "X"). It appears to me that prior to her encounter with Flyer22, Bfpage's editing included little to no activity on X. I don't know if Flyer22 would agree that this adequately describes the locus of disputed topics but there would be a much greater chance for peace in the project if Bfpage withdrew from X topics rather than focusing on interactions alone. Flyer22 how would you characterize X, and do you think this would be a more useful way to go? Jytdog (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think Bfpage was clear about tracking my edits. But Bfpage didn't truly acknowledge it as following me around. When Bfpage created User talk:Bfpage/Following me around, Bfpage says that it was a way to know which articles I edit and to avoid those articles so that we would not interact; as noted in the first WP:ANI discussion about Bfpage, I found that annoying as well. In "My other thoughts on this matter." piece above, I did note that Bfpage was not interested in the types of articles that I edit until the encounter with me. I think this partly concerned me and partly concerned Bfpage wanting to help improve the poor state of many of these articles. As noted at User talk:Jytdog/Archive 10#Advice on potential WP:Hounding behavior, that is what Bfpage essentially told me. It seems that our interaction inspired Bfpage. This is not the first time that an editor has gotten inspired by me in a way, whether it's because they like the work that I do, and/or want to edit alongside me, and/or think that they can do a better job at it than me. I welcome those who can help improve these topics, especially since I am generally lazy at improving them these days due to so much Wiki burnout, but only as long as they are not disruptive and do not try to antagonize me. In Bfpage's case, as we know, we just don't mesh well together. I understand that Wikipedia is a working environment, but there are some editors who are better off apart instead of together; I believe that's the case here. But I don't want to try and keep Bfpage from editing such topics; I just want it so that we usually don't need to interact. And, as noted, Bfpage and Kevin Gorman have attempted to come up with a solution for that. Flyer22 (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that it may be helpful if editors concerned can present their views on any aspects of their own editing priorities that may raise contention relative to the other editors worldview. I think that it would be great if editors can contribute to the presentation of views that present positions and understandings. I also hope that both parties concerned can be open to amicable working relationships. We are an editing group and editors need to be able to openly work together. We need to be able to talk and work together on content issues and IBAN's between editors that work on similar contents blatantly do not work. Editors need to be able to interact directly and openly while we all endeavour to present clear and fair arguments and presentations of information. GregKaye20:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Liz On what issue? An editor's editing of some categories has not been cited as raising any content dispute. Despite this the editor was been banned for six months. It all happened in the context of in a process in which other editors have been able to make various comments about the editor concerned and in which the editor has been denied the possibility of reply.
Note: I am concerned about a few things surrounding Bfpage's unblock agreement and its guidelines:
First, the unblock conditions clearly state Bfpage is to cease mentioning a couple of other editors in her user space: Flyer22 and Jytdog. Yet, when one looks at the guidelines talk page, she refers to them more than once.
Next, it was my understanding that Bfpage had already agreed to the terms of the unblock, yet she is now questioning the conditions and seemingly has issue with some of them. Why weren't these concerns brought up before she agreed and was subsequently unblocked?
Last: Based on the above, haven't the terms of the agreement already been violated? If nothing else, she was told to stop worrying about the other two editors, but I believe the comments she has made at the unblock guidelines talk page show quite the opposite is true. From my vantage point, it would seem some of the same behaviors still exist, indeed, they were never abandoned. At least, that's what I see. If anyone else has a different perspective, I'd be interested in reading it, because what I think I see happening is disturbing to me. Especially without the blocking/unblocking admin currently available to keep an eye on things. -- WV ● ✉✓21:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog something that I have still not been able to understand in all this is how an editor such as Flyer22 can get to the point in the thread Following me around of being able to talk about "Every single editor who has followed me around"? On past performance, not that I have asked this, chance may have it that someone will start following me around.
Please also consider in situations like this addressing Bfpage directly. We are meant to have a community where people talk and get on with each other.
On the TP for Bfpage I commented (at 05:33, 4 June 2015) "As far as guidelines go, I think that that the essence of what needed to have been covered was covered in the summary of the 2 hour and 19 minute long Incident report that ended at 06:19, 8 March 2015. In reply also to another editor who had certainly made unneccessary and very pointed WP:CANVASS references to Flyer22, this simply said: "please stop making unnecessary references to Flyer22, either directly or through ..., hidden replies and followup barnstars. Any continuation of this behavior will be considered a breach of WP:HOUND." I do not see what has changed since this and I do not see how this had not been followed."
GregKaye, I am allowed to point to matters where people stalked me before, whether it's confronting a current stalker or whether it's mentioning the matter at WP:ANI; and I mentioned that particular past stalker in both WP:ANI threads I started about Bfpage. Regarding this case you linked to above, I fail to see how you don't understand how I could get to the point of mentioning a past stalker when addressing Bfpage about following me around, especially when Bfpage was denying following me around. Bfpage did follow me around, as is clear by the aforementioned archived discussion on Jytdog's talk page; since Bfpage was aware that I did not want us to interact and did not appreciate Bfpage following me around, I viewed the "learn from your experience by reading the articles that you have authored and articles which you have edited with the intent of improving upon what you have already accomplished" outlook as WP:Hounding...for reasons I made perfectly clear at Bfpage's talk page, Jytdog's talk page, my talk page, and WP:ANI. I still view it as WP:Hounding. I pointed Bfpage to an example of a very serious stalker, and what happened in the case of that stalker. I don't see how that is a problem. Despite your statements that mentioning past stalkers is irrelevant, and that I have "a wider and colourful history of involvement in ANI," I view mentioning past stalkers when confronting current stalkers as very relevant; it is informing them that I have been stalked before and that I know what it entails. It is showing what happened in those cases, and that I clearly am not keen on being stalked (well, unless it's an editor I don't mind following me around because we have a good or decent Wikipedia relationship). In other words, those past stalking cases show what can happen to the current stalkers. I gave Bfpage ample warning to stop following me around; the following continued, and we know what happened. Even this post by Bfpage makes it seem like Bfpage never followed me while knowing that I would be upset by it. Again, it is clear from the aforementioned discussion on Jytdog's talk page that Bfpage followed me around. That you don't understand why I was highly frustrated with Bfpage during that first WP:ANI matter and why I am still frustrated with Bfpage, and that you feel the need to state I have "a wider and colourful history of involvement in ANI" as if I was ever a stalker or was just as much of a problem as Bfpage, is beyond me. Those other WP:ANI cases of mine are irrelevant to this matter, and a few involved another well-known stalker of mine. Let's look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive873#User Flyer22 and User EvergreenFir - Hounding, harassment since you referenced my past WP:ANI matters. That does not show me as a stalker; it shows that I was dealing with highly problematic editors, and others agreed that those editors were highly problematic.
I am pretty much done discussing this WP:AN matter unless Kevin Gorman shows up here to comment and I see a need to respond. There is no need at all to WP:Ping me to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The op of the recent AN/I was built on recent evidence that Bfpage had recently edited the Anal sex and Vagina articles. You have taken the plausible though not proven interprets that such actions have been taken so that "Bfpage could ease into articles that I edit". I then took the time to present the hopefully constructive reply that included reference that edits by Bfpage have included the following:
480Monarch butterfly migration ...
159Pelvic inflammatory disease ...
129Scrotum 115Sexism
113List of microbiota species of the lower reproductive tract of women ...
47List of bacterial vaginosis microbiota
In this context, though no certainty, I think that it is similarly plausible that Bfpage may have simply followed her areas of interest in editing the mentioned pages.
There is no reason that I can see that she should be restricted to adding, say, to her 411 edits to Monarch butterfly. If there is a content dispute in regard to articles such as others mentioned then this can also be dealt with as a content dispute.
In my above post I said, "Surely this sufficiently covered the issue of hounding. What, if anything, am I missing?" Again, what am I missing?
I apologise for my statement, which I now see as incomplete, on the talk page of Bfpage where I said "I have also noted that Flyer22 will quote irrelevant cases of other editors stalking her ...". I should have made mention of this in specific reference regarding my opinion on such use in AN/I type environments. I am genuinely heartened by the efforts that have been made to resolve this dispute on a personal basis. I am also heartened by the moderate view that you expressed that you were, "not looking for Bfpage (who identifies as female, by the way) to be blocked. And Bfpage being blocked for six months is too harsh, in my opinion." I do object to inferences on Bfpage's talk page of "applaud(ing)... seeing through the friendly country artist grandma persona" when, in truth, it does not seem that she was even recognised to be female. GregKaye06:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I've seen it too. I think the theory is that a casual glance will make it appear that the second edit cleared up the vandalism, so that the remaining vandalism will stick around until someone comes across it haphazardly. I've seen it work too. Sometimes I just make sure by going back to the pre-vandalism edit as the "Last Good Version" (LGV). BMK (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I have seen this tactic too. But in this instance, AGF may be warranted since (1) the IPs geolocate to differentstates, (2) the Leprosy article is viewed ~100 times/hour, so it is not unexpected that an independent reader saw the obvious vandalism in the opening sentences 5 minutes later and corrected it (about 5 other readers must have seen it too, but chose not to correct it or, likely, didn't know how!), and (3) the vandalism in the infobox image caption was much harder to detect for a reader, as opposed to watchlisters looking at the diff or persons who knew how to look at the article history; and only a person familiar with wikipedia innards would have likely fixed both issues in the same edit. If 96.238.189.128 (talk·contribs) efforts had been spotted in time, it would have been good to thank them and invite them to join our ranks. Abecedare (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
In general, there is no way to know if the second IP is a good-faith user trying to clean up vandalism and just happenned to show up at that article at that time, or the same person as the first trying to keep his/her vandalism by having a different IP clean up part of it. We should generally AGF for the second IP, unless we have other evidence otherwise (e.g several such pairs show up, each pair within a few minutes, from a single range). עוד מישהוOd Mishehu05:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems I blocked User talk:Weathereditor recently for edit warring, but I had acted in haste as I've been involved in things there so unblocked. Will someone see to things at here and take over? Then whack me a good one or whatever. Vsmith (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(non-admin closure) AN is not a discussion forum. There's nothing here for admins to do, and little that's been said that hasn't been said a number of times before in numerous venues. As such, I'm closing this thread. Everyone should go back to editing the encyclopedia, which is the only thing we're here for, everything else is ancillary. Future discussions such as this should take place at WP:VPI, or WP:VPP if there's a proposal to be made, not at AN. BMK (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This thread is largely presented in regard to potential practices in AN/I and right of reply
To my mind ANI fits one of the central definition as presented at kangaroo court "a judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice". The problem, as I see it, is exacerbated in Wikipedia in that there is, as I see it, a failure in the provision that such a court "often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides". A Wikipedia form of justice and punishment can be customarily dispensed without even a word being permitted from the plaintiff by way of, for instance, presenting mitigating evidence of extenuating circumstances.
- You have the right to remain silent when questioned.
- Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.
- You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
- If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
In what seems to me to be extraordinarily contrary behaviour within Wikipedia, while real world situations give a right to silence, Wikipedia admins (even in cases where others have started speaking negatively about an editor) can unilaterally silence an editor from that discussion and while real world situations go to an extreme of providing representation for a person, Wikipedia can deny a person even the right to represent themselves.
Surely a right of reply can at least be something that Wikipedia can protect. Surely no one has the right to silence someone at just the point that they are being brought to trial. I a court a judge might include in the beginning of proceedings the question: "How do you plead?" In Wikipedia an admin may decide to, in my view, race ahead and place the person in effective house arrest.
A lot of this relates to the two reports as related to Bfpage the first of which lasted for 2 hours and 19 minutes prior to closure and the second of which Bfpage was not allowed to contribute because she had been blocked.
I great concern in these things relates to reconciliation and openness between editors. I also advocate that "Incidents" should be renamed to "Incident resolution".
I would also implore involved parties to consider the potential effects of various technical closures of threads with issues that may be raised by Closure (psychology) and the development of understandings in relation to the effects on people involved in various cases. This may potentially also have great relevance in cases in which Ibans are imposed. GregKaye06:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
While you may raise some legitimate concerns here, I would point out that nothing on Wikipedia approximates to a court, tribunal, or similar legal or quasi-legal system of adjudication - and to make such analogies is both misleading and frankly grossly overblown. This is a website, owned by a not-for-profit foundation but in practice run almost entirely by volunteer contributors, with the sole purpose of providing an online encyclopaedia. It is not a court, kangaroo or otherwise. As with any website open to public editing, it proves necessary from time to time to restrict access to individuals who appear not to be contributing usefully. Given that nobody has any legal right to edit Wikipedia pages, the suggestion that withdrawing such a supposed right is some sort of 'legal injustice' is therefore a red herring, and has no real bearing on any proper discussion on how we deal with problematic editors - or with suggestions that individuals have been dealt with inappropriately. A sense of proportion seems necessary if we are to deal with actual problems in a rational and considered manner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
But ANI (and AN, for that matter) are noticeboards, not a judicial tribunal or assembly. In fact, in most cases, administrators don't even bring cases to ANI, they just impose a block, hopefully, with an edit notice that explains the cause of the block. At least when a complaint is brought to ANI, "the community" (that is, the random group of regulars who happen to read ANI that day) can weigh the arguments and offer their opinions. And while I don't think an editor should go through a case, especially at AE while they are blocked, it happens. And when it does, the editor posts comments on their talk page which are transferred to the case page.
It is a terrible mistake to compare doing administrative work on an internet website to the processes of law and order, I guess, in the United States (even though the internet is a global environment). It's more similar to being a moderator on a message board than being a lawyer presenting evidence against or for a client where a master's degree and a license is required to practice and entails legal and ethical obligations. LizRead!Talk!20:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Liz Re: "in most cases, administrators don't even bring cases to ANI, they just impose a block" and this is quite right. The thing that I recommend is that perhaps either the block can be placed after the discussion has come to an end or that remit can be given for the relevant parties in the discussion so that they retain a right to be respond to comments made in the discussion within which they are a major focus. GregKaye15:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
As Andy says, there is no comparison. This is a private website owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. Enforceable rights are limited to: the right to fork, and the right to leave. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course there is comparison. Editors are called to account for actions. Evidence is presented. A consensus is sought. A verdict is pronounced. In every other situation that I know of, the accused has a right of reply. I absolutely agree with AndyTheGrump that "As with any website open to public editing, it proves necessary from time to time to restrict access to individuals who appear not to be contributing usefully." This is in no way disputed. What I am saying here is, if accusations are being made against an editor and if comments are baing made about an editor, that the editor facing the accusations and who is being commented upon should have a right of reply in the place in which the accusations are being made and in the location where the comments are being placed. Clearly WP:ROPE may also apply in this situation as a lot may depend on what the accused and commented on party actually says. Blackmane's point about Ostracism is totally irrelevant at the point at which a discussion is taking place as to whether or not a form of ostracism should be imposed. Sure Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy but this does not mean that, while an editor is being accused or being commented on, that the editor can't have a right of reply. Sure ostracise/cast out editors when such action is called for - but, while it is being called for, give the accused the right of reply. Within a block, editors are typically restricted to edits on their talk pages and, in some cases, may have email privileges (which I think should actually be the first thing to go) taken away. The result is, if anything, more severe than house arrest. Within an imposition of house arrest the so arrested party may typically be able to make correspondence. Our penalties are, arguably, more severe. Obviously there will be situations in which such penalties will be required - but, within the decision making process as to whether to impose such a penalty, surely the accused may fairly be given a right to reply. There may regularly be more than one side of a story and I think that we should be open to what editors have to say. GregKaye19:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
"The result is, if anything, more severe than house arrest"? No it isn't. Not even remotely. If you want to be taken seriously, drop the ridiculous hyperbole... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump With respect I never said you were. In your knowledge of house arrest you will know that, in many cases, the person arrested may still be allowed to communicate relatively freely with other people with the only proviso that the persons captors may check content being sent or that there may be a limit to the number of people that the person can contact simultaneously. In the Wikipedia system a blocked editor is typically limited to the generation of pings. Clearly, in this situation, the pings will only work both if the Wikipedia system is running as it should and if the blocked editor knows to generate the completed ping and their own signature in the same edit. In effect, a blocked editor in Wikipedia is reduced to a parallel of an old fashioned and potentially faulty pager system as it might have been used in the real world. In all of this time an AN/I or other preceding may continue and yet the Wikipedia contributor facing the accusations is permitted to say nothing in his or her own defence. GregKaye15:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Having been on Wikipedia editing for eleven years now, I can say that there have been some very unfortunate cases over the past decade where I've seen ANI being used as a weapon. Eight or nine years ago the problem was much worse and I recall in those days some editors were deliberately targeted with ANI used as a means to run them off this site. I think the poster of this thread makes some very good points but also this is the Internet and not the real world so any hope of a courtroom legal norm will not be achieved. In my early days I ran afoul of ANI a few times myself, but now that I'm older and wiser the best advice is to identify editors who are likely to use ANI as a means to attack others and just try to stay away from them. -OberRanks (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
MarnetteD that's all great but why not also permit an accused/commented on editor to reply to accusations and comments when they are first made? Why not? GregKaye02:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
"The result is, if anything, more severe than house arrest", " Our penalties are, arguably, more severe", Wait, being blocked from a fucking website is more severe than house arrest. I'm pretty sure Daw Aung Sang Suu Kyi would beg to differ. The late Nelson Mandela would definitely beg to differ. Blackmane (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC).
I like how you shift your goal posts. Your point is that being blocked is more severe than house arrest, it is not. Your follow up point is that our penalties are more severe, and no they are not. Being blocked in no way threatens your livelihood, your freedom or your life for that matter. As AndyTheGrump has said, drop the ridiculous hyperbole. You may have a point, somewhere, but it's lost in your manifestly absurd comparisons. Blackmane (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
This editor appears to fall into a class of editors who feel very strongly that Wikipedia is a deeply terrible place, and that they must spend considerable energy in venting. Do they do this because they really feel that with a little reform, Wikipedia can be great, so that their energy is well-spent, or are they just venting anger? Unlike some other truly terrible places, Wikipedia is optional, and has a mission, which is to build an encyclopedia collaboratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Robert McClenon What I feel very strongly is that, if other editors are discussing a fellow editor, the editor that is being spoken about should be able to respond. Please do not read into this more than is reality. My concern is for editors that may have things to say in their own defence or that may permit resolution with other editors in the "discussion". Robert, can I please ask you a question? If there was someone making comments about you or a group of people making comments about you, might it be possible that you might want to reply? Is there any possibility of that? (No I do not think, in any way that Wikipedia is a terrible place). GregKaye16:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
If you feel that, argue the case directly, and stop making ludicrous comparisons to house arrest. Wikipedia is not a court of law, it has no ability to administer any legal process, to deprive anyone of their liberty, or to do anything other than (attempt to) prevent people posting on a particular website - something which nobody has any specific legal entitlement to do anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Andy, they are real world comparisons.
You do not see them as relevant. I do.
AN/I is a location within which decisions regarding editors rights of access are made and in which editor conduct is discussed. I do not tell you what you can and cannot say and have given my best justification for things that I have I believe fairly said here. Wikipedia is described as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." People get into the habit of editing and then, often without being given the chance to give their side of a story, they may be "ostracised" from the apparently all encompassing category of that may have previously been regarded to include anyone. Please do not now drag this thread into a mindless dispute over that last statement. The issues are simple: "right of reply" as well as a desire to keep as many editors connected as possible while facilitating hopefully positive (whenever possible) routes towards editor reconciliation. GregKaye17:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The only rights anyone has as regard to Wikipedia are the right to fork, and the right to leave.Nobody has a right to edit Wikpedia. Anything else is a matter of what we choose to do when dealing with situations where it appears that people aren't contributing positively. Those are the only terms on which any discussions regarding appropriate procedure need to be based, regardless of how many mindless comparisons you make to legal process, and how many imaginary 'rights' you drag into this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think ANI falls within the remits of the Geneva Conventions, seeing as it's not a criminal court. Even if it did, I don't see Roland Freisler or anyone of his ilk partaking here. Kurtis(talk)03:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It occurred to me, shortly after my comment about User:GregKaye, what his error is. He has made an understandable but completely incorrect extension by analogy. He thinks that a Wikipedia editor should have the same rights as a citizen does in a real political community that is a representative democracy. One does not, and that analogy is plausible but completely wrong. Wikipedia is not a political community, and it certainly is not a real political community (and virtual political communities may or may not provide the rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or by national bills of rights, which only apply to real life). Wikipedia is an electronic workplace. A paid or volunteer worker in any sort of workplace does not have the well-defined rights of a citizen of a political community. In particular, there is no guarantee of the right of reply, nor the unrestricted right of free speech, in a workplace. A paid or volunteer worker, in any workplace, who is disruptive may be fired without the right to full political due process. Courts in various countries have granted varying degrees of rights to due process with regard to termination of paid employment, because paid employment provides a conditional right to property. There is no guarantee of the right of due process when one is not at jeopardy of liberty or property. Wikipedia is an electronic workplace, not a community, and a disruptive volunteer employee can be fired (blocked or even banned). That is why it makes sense for the subject editor to have only limited procedural rights. Human rights in the United States apply to life, liberty, and property, and they are similar elsewhere. Any argument from analogy to provide full procedural rights for a political community fails for those reasons. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
To summarize, ANI doesn't violate the standards of law and justice because the standards of law and justice, which guarantee human rights, do not apply. There is no human right to participate in an electronic community. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Whilst I concur with AndyTheGrump and Robert McClenon, anyone who loosely describes ANI as a Kangaroo Court is sadly often not far off the mark. Until the forum can be restored to its rightful owners and the peanut gallery, vengeance seekers, trolls, wannabe admins, and Anti-Admiship Brigade members and other univolved drive-bys can be persuaded to leave the place alone, I don't see much change on the horizon, and I therefore don't see much motivation for more admins to want to work there. Catch 22? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
While I have some sympathy with your comments, I would have to suggest that the suggestion that any particular subgroup within the Wikipedia community 'owns' ANI is questionable to say the least. Legally, the WMF owns it, and amongst the Wikipedia community, there are no 'rightful owners' - participation is voluntary, and I see no evidence that the community has ever handed over 'ownership' of it to anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The only error that I have now seen in the "house arrest" analogy is that a blocked Wikipedia editor is only restricted from interacting and being seen outside (in relation to their user page and talk page home environments). The blocked editor can still wander, look around and see the sights so, in this, the analogy does not fit. Otherwise the metaphor is perfectly reasoned. Its a metaphor. I am not trying to ascribe simile but, at most, made passing mention of a metaphor which other editors then latched onto. I was perfectly entitled to present the reasonable view presented as I did in my edit on 06:28, 5 June 2015. I said, "In Wikipedia an admin may decide to, in my view, race ahead and place the person in effective house arrest." I talked about about "my view", I talked about "effective house arrest". Clearly there is a difference between paid and voluntary establishments and, as I have had a very long history of volunteering, I think that I can comment on the ethos of these some of the organisations. If these organisations ever had a system of judgement in which all members were permitted to come together with otherwise open doors - which presented as a fair metaphor of effectively open doors of open access by editors to AN/I - then I cannot imagine any but most extreme situations in which an accused member would not also be able to come and present their side of a story. If a worker were to get canned in relation to a misdemeanour it is fairly certain that that people in the authoratitive structure of the firm would have face to face discussions with the person concerned prior to any finalisation of termination. Why? Because otherwise, as far as I know, they may break any number of employment laws.
Everything that I have said has been reasoned. Please can editors not resort to ridicule or to unsubstantiated attack / slurs such as being "a complete fucking imbecile". If you have a reasoned argument to make then please make it. Otherwise please keep your fucking mouth shut ("mouth" here being fairly used as a metaphor). GregKaye05:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment previously submitted at 06:17, 7 June 2015 but faced with "edit conflict" I have twice been accused of presenting "ridiculous hyperbole". In the article on the subject hyperbole we read: "An example of hyperbole is: "The bag weighed a ton."" Clearly it is very unlikely that a bag will not have a weight of 1,000 kg (within the metric system) so clearly there is exaggeration.
I presented my view that "In Wikipedia an admin may ... race ahead and place the person in effective house arrest." and for this I have been taken to task. Thankfully, in this environment, I am permitted a defence and, as this has been made an issue, can present comparisons.
In house arrest a person may not physically leave a house but for agreed exceptions which will certainly include being permitted to attend court so as to present any relevant defence. A person under house arrest may, in many circumstances, be permitted to make contact with others such as through writing letters or making phone calls but may have a limit on the number of people they can contact at the same time.
In Wikipedia a block will mean that an editor will be free to look around outside while (like other editors) being unseen while just looking but (unlike unblocked editors) being excluded from interaction. A person under a Wikipedia block is allowed no form of communication with others beyond the leaving of posts which may or may not be read on her or his own user page.
Granted - Wikipedia editing will hopefully be just one aspect of a Wikipedia editor's life while physical house arrest has an effect on the entirity of the so arrested persons life but, within these parameters, I hold to my statement regarding blocking that "The result is, if anything, more severe than house arrest". The blocked person is barred from responding while other editors may potentially be able to present an uninhibited polemic against the accused party. Sure, at a later date, an accused person may be able to present contrary information but why not just let an accused person respond at the time???
ANI reports may reach a point of "case closed" at breathtaking speed and these cases, potentially filled with one sided arguments, then merely await archive with all the various and potentially one sided arguments being "on record". I do not think that this is fair practice. GregKaye08:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of any perceived controversy regarding any use of approved of metaphors I would be grateful if the content of this thread as relating to right of reply and any related ethical matters can be considered
"The right of reply generally means the right to defend oneself against public criticism in the same venue where it was published. In some countries, such as Brazil, it is a legal or even constitutional right. In other countries, it is not a legal right as such, but a right which certain media outlets and publications choose to grant to people who have been severely criticised by them, as a matter of policy."
I believe that it is fair to describe WP:AN/I as a venue within which public criticism is expressed and, though it is typically read by a relatively small number of local editor, records are kept in open archive available to 2 billion internet users.
My understanding is that a denial of right to reply to editors living under Brazilian law would be illegal.
In other countries publishing organisations dedicate space in newspapers etc. so as to facilitate response at their own expense.
In comparison all Wikipedia editors would need to do is to not close threads within which editors have been commented upon until it is clear that the editor has either logged on or is considered to have been likely to have done so and to clearly permit editors, even if blocked, to fairly present their side of any story in threads in which other editors are talking about them and their actions.
To me it is just common sense that if someone is being talked about then that person should, as may be possible, afforded a fair potential to reply. GregKaye08:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
How long are you going to continue belaboring this point that is both completely wrong and that clearly no one agrees with? The comparisons to constitutional rights, real-life criminal prosecution and house arrests are still ridiculous, no matter how many times you explain yourself. ANI is not a court of law. We do not send out subpoenas to "the accused" and they are therefore under no obligation to show up to ANI to defend themselves. Vice versa, we are under no obligation to wait for them to show up to exercise a right of reply, before we take action. They can still argue their case on their talk page if they are blocked before they had a chance to reply at ANI, and are thus in no way barred a right of reply. Realize that continuing this line of argument is venturing in the realm of WP:IDHT and drop it.--Atlan (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, there is a long history of copying statements of blocked users to either AN or AN/I if requested by that user in good faith. While its not the same as being able to respond directly, it works pretty well when needed. Monty84514:03, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a specific proposal for reform of the blocking of disruptive editors? Obviously you think that the way WP:ANI is deeply flawed, so deeply flawed that you think that arguments from human rights are applicable. I agree in general that WP:ANI doesn't work very well, because "the community" over-represents the loudest editors. I have other criticisms of WP:ANI also. However, do you have a specific proposal for what to do differently? If so, propose it at Village pump (proposals), or propose a specific reform somewhere else. Just continuing to go on and on here without a specific proposal is tireseome and will be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
As I have already said: "ANI reports may reach a point of "case closed" at breathtaking speed and these cases, potentially filled with one sided arguments, then merely await archive with all the various and potentially one sided arguments being "on record". I do not think that this is fair practice." I would implore both admin and non-admin potential thread closers to look at the user contributions of the editor concerned and only close the thread if the editor has been on-line since an incident report was initiated or if a time period has passed within which it may be considered that the editor would have been likely to have logged on. I think something like this would be reasonable and plain "common sense". Come on people. This is just decent behaviour. GregKaye17:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
"Hey guys, let's be decent and allow an accused party to get a word in before we block them". Very few people would have disagreed with you had you just started out with this simple argument, rather than with the silly hyperbole.--Atlan (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
You say that very few people would have disagreed. I disagree in part, perhaps because you haven't considered trolls. It is foolish to allow a troll the right of reply. The attention of getting the right of reply is exactly what the troll wants, and exactly what must be denied. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup - though the extent to which we consider a 'right of reply' to be necessary will depend on circumstances: If an otherwise unused IP or a new account posts "JIMBO WALES EETS BABYS LOL!" into half a dozen articles, we summarily block for vandalism. We have an encyclopaedia to work on, and have no reason to waste everyone's time over unnecessary process. Which is why (beyond obvious issues concerning hyperbole) discussions revolving around supposed 'rights' being infringed miss the point. A block of an otherwise beneficial contributor will deserve more scrutiny (before and after the block) than a vandal, because it is in Wikipedia's interest not to get it wrong, as well as being the 'decent' thing to do. Arguing that 'everyone should have a right to respond before a block' is all very well, until you consider the consequences of doing so - we don't grant 'rights' to vandals, trolls and the like in the first place, so we can't take such imaginary rights away. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I will ask the OP again whether he has a specific proposal for reform, and also to consider whether granting a right of reply would encourage trolls. Does the OP have any specific examples of cases where a good-faith but disruptive editor, such as a POV-pusher or an uncivil editor, was blocked without being able to reply? What I have more often observed is that it takes too long to get disruptive editors blocked or topic-banned. Does the OP have a specific example where the haste that he identifies at ANI resulted in an injustice to a good-faith but disruptive editor? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye - please do not reverse a good faith closing of a thread you started and are the primary engine of - other editors can do that if they think the closing was inappropriate. Such behavior as your re-opening this has, in the past, been considered to be sanctionable. I am re-closing this, because (1) it's in the wrong place and (2) the comments indicate that the community is tired of your pushing this. I suggest that you WP:DROPTHESTICK, seriously. BMK (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please advise regarding suitable location for an ability to reply related discussion
GregKaye please take the advice below regarding the stick and the dead horse. We are not a legal system and will not behave like one. We should all go and improve an article. Chillum02:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices."
"Future discussions such as this should take place at WP:VPI, or WP:VPP if there's a proposal to be made, not at AN."
I have tried to clarify the situation with BMK on a personal basis on three occasions. Once not receiving reply until I had action here (also giving clear explanation of the context) and on a further twooccasions with both of my enquiries being reverted without clarification or explanation being given.
I am now left to ask where a discussion should take place. Editors can agree to differ in regard to the usage of terminologies any of which, I think, can be used to describe a much needed blocking facility within Wikipedia. This does not change the fact that there is an issue that can be fairly discussed regarding the ability of various editors to respond in situations in which accusations and comments are made.
I cannot think of a more appropriate place to discuss actions that take place on an administrators' noticeboard than on an administrators' noticeboard. Why go somewhere else?
One more piece of advice Edit the encyclopedia. 32.3% of your edits to articles would be acceptable for an admin, but is not good for a rank-and-file editor, especially when compared to 62.3% to various talk pages and Wikipedia space. You need to edit more, and talk less. This is not a debating society, we're here to build an encyclopedia. What are you here for? BMK (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Answering the question, a lot of work via WP:RM and similar boards, getting involved with TP issues often to do with bias issues most often in response to pre-existing article TP threads. That's a lot of it.
My question goes unanswered. When there is an option to discuss, on an administrators' noticeboard, actions that take place on another administrators' noticeboard, why go somewhere else? GregKaye20:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Unblock. As I said at the PD talk page, people are not normally blocked indefinitely by a single administrator after less than 100 edits – some of them perfectly constructive, others arguably politically biased, but all of them ultimately unremarkable in the grand scheme of things –
without so much as a prior warning or ANI thread,
without ever once having been involved in an edit war,
more than two weeks after they last edited,
almost five years after the supposedly related accounts and IPs (all of which also have clean block logs) last edited, and
a quarter of an hour after a national newspaper has already clairvoyantly reported the block, which then becomes a major national election news story.
The ArbCom decision is very clear in its condemnation of the admin concerned. In my view this was a trumped-up block made to serve a media story that was already written and published before the block was even enacted on Wikipedia. As such the block is without merit and should not stand. AndreasJN46611:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Just as an aside, I've seen accounts blocked indefinitely who had 0 edits, many with less than 10, if they are suspected of being a sockpuppet. LizRead!Talk!11:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if they are suspected of being a sockpuppet of a banned editor. Not if they are suspected (based on very flimsy evidence) of being a new incarnation of an editor in good standing who stopped editing five years ago with a clean block log. That's just bizarre. AndreasJN46612:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
We routinely block first-time editors after one or two edits when they're just here for spamming; see this page before I deleted it and indef-blocked the creator. Also, note that Chase me etc. has not yet been desysopped; Special:Listusers gives his rights as "checkuser, oversight, administrator". Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Unblock - even if the 2 accounts were used by the same person, it appears that the user had abandoned the old account and was user was now using a different one, and not abusively. I don't see a good reason to let the block stand. Rlendog (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Unblock - For procedural reasons although it has no real world consequences, per the Arb case which is all but closed. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: Can you elaborate on the "prodcedural reasons"? Are you referring to the ArbCom case only, or is there something else? Also, did ArbCom find that the block itself, as opposed to Chase's behavior surrounding it, was unjustified? BMK (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Dennis - Never mind, a closer reading of the ArbzCOm PFD gave me the answer in the proposed FOF #4. BMK (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
That is the exact reason I based it on. And like Flo below, I feel like we are trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube, but as a procedural matter, it should be done. Dennis Brown - 2¢16:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Unblock. I almost said "do nothing per JzG", but since this whole thing appears to have been a PR-type move, we ought to send a stronger PR-type message that the situation was unjustified. If The Guardian comes back to look at the situation again, they'll probably see from the Arbcom case that "The administrator was punished for his actions in this situation", but they also ought to see that "Contribsx was found not guilty and un-blocked". Nyttend (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm aware there's currently a request at RFPP but this really needs to be fasttracked . This article's been receiving vandalism from multiple ips and users all day and it's intensified in the past hour. Please semi-protect/PC the page immediatelyBosstopher (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC).
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This discussion seems to have been archived without any resolution. Was there a decision to impose a company ban or not? I would like to suggest that the consensus was to impose a company ban, but there was no consensus to include User:Judae1 in the ban, and there were editors who felt that he should explicitly exempted from such a ban.
Closure is needed because there is currently a discussion at WP:COIN regarding an editor who is apparently employed by Torossian. Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Exactly how would this work? How is it known who is working for his company? Which accounts? What if they don't go by their real names? What if an employee doesn't edit articles that have anything to do with the company, why should they be blocked on the assumption that they might? Its an unworkable proposition. Blocks and bans are meant to prevent disruption, they don't anticipate disruption when there is evidence of none nor are they imposed on editors who have not been shown to have committed misconduct. LizRead!Talk!20:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I neither agree nor disagree with you. I just note that there was a discussion on this, a consensus developed, but the discussion was archived before a decision was reached. And, as I note, the decision is relevant to the discussion currently underway at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Ronn_Torossian. If there is a company ban on employees of Torossian, it means that user Cada mori would be banned if there is a consensus that he is a paid writer working for Torossian. If there is no company ban, then some lesser sanction (or no sanction) might be appropriate. --Ravpapa (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Discussions on noticeboards are often archived without coming to a decision on a particular action. Sometimes this is actually a good thing as editors/admins are undecided or a situation hasn't become serious enough or clear enough to have a good idea what a positive resolution would be. Other times, archiving just puts off action because there is not much interest in the case or it is very complicated and then it is unfortunate but understandable as this is a volunteer activity. LizRead!Talk!20:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Sockpuppet investigations block has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Some exciting news for administrators: Twinkle's batch operation tools (batch delete, batch undelete, batch protect, deprod, and unlink) have been overhauled. They should now be significantly more reliable and provide more useful status output. Helpful options, such as "Select All" and "Deselect All" buttons and the ability to shift-click to toggle many checkboxes at once, have been provided. In addition, batch deletion has a number of new options, including the ability to delete the talk pages of the pages being deleted.
Some long-standing bugs have also been fixed, such as the long-obsolete CSD criterion "R1" being referenced in some deletion summaries.
Admins who use the image deletion ("Deli-batch") tool should know that it has been deprecated. The reason why Twinkle has a separate tool for image deletion goes back to the pre-API days (before 2011) and has not been relevant for some years. Admins are advised to use batch deletion ("D-batch") instead. If there are any features from Deli-batch that are missing from the new, updated D-batch module, please let us know at WT:TW. In a few months, Deli-batch will be removed altogether.
Any administrators who need to perform mass operations may like to consider making use of the newly updated Twinkle toolset.
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.
Since the website they're claiming the text was first written on is now down, I've asked the user to point to where the text was located so we can verify this. Sam Walton (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is ongoing controversy at Zeitgeist (film series). There was formerly an article on The Zeitgeist Movement, which is a response to the films. It was merged into the film series article, but some favor splitting it back out. A content dispute was taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard. After one unsuccessful effort at mediation, two Requests for Comment were posted at Talk: Zeitgeist (film series), and the DRN thread has been closed as being handled by the RFCs. Threaded discussion of the RFCs has become heated, and has gotten to the level of personal attacks. I am requesting a few admin eyes (two would be good, four would be better, six would also be better) at the article just to deal with the personal attacks. Since the film series includes a theory that September 11, 2001, was all part of a World Order master plan, disruptive editing may be subject to WP:ARB911. Disruptive editing will become more clearly subject to discretionary sanctions in a few days, when the American politics decision is finalized. Thank you in advance to anyone who watchlists. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Do the 'personal attacks' in question include the gross violations of WP:BLP policy regarding assertions concerning the founder of TZM which have repeatedly been made on article talk pages? If so, it is about time - they have been repeatedly ignored when raised at WP:ANI. Or am I right in assuming that the community considers it OK to accuse someone (based on no sources whatsoever, naturally) of "brainwashing" or "neuro linguistic programming and meme control", as well as accusations of concocting a political movement for personal profit, as long as they aren't a contributor? Judging by past experience, that would seem to be the case, which tells us a great deal about the narcissistic concerns of Wikipedia, and just how little its proclaimed 'neutrality' matters when it comes to minor articles about political movements of marginal notability that nobody much likes. The failure of the community to address this is of course symptomatic of the larger issues that have led to the ArbCom cases - and frankly I very much doubt that ArbCom is going to resolve the issue either. While 'adnmin eyes' on the thread in question might be welcome, what is actually needed is a viewpoint from further back - one that looks at the root causes, rather than the overt symptoms, and which actually addresses the underlying problem, rather than relying on 'discretionary sanctions' fixes which merely paint over the cracks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
User:AndyTheGrump - The way to raise issues about gross violations of BLP against Peter Joseph is by raising issues about gross violations of BLP against Peter Joseph, not by accusing other editors of insanity. As I have recently explained to a few less experienced editors, civility is not a nice-to-have in Wikipedia; it not only is required, but it works better than invective. A stubborn editor who is attacked is very unlikely to respond positively. A stubborn editor who is reasoned with may or may not respond positively. BLP violations are taken very seriously on article pages; I haven't seen a claim about BLP violations against Peter Joseph on Peter Joseph or Zeitgeist (film series). If you want to complain about BLP violations on talk pages, do you want the specific violations redacted, or do you want a policy shift in general to enforce BLP more strictly on talk pages? The one issue that possibly could be within the remit of ArbCom would be to clarify that there should be stricter BLP enforcement on talk pages. I would suggest to you, Andy, that you aren't likely to get ArbCom to take up a case just by over-the-line against BLP violators, at least not without getting sanctioned for your own personal attacks, which were over-the-line. You didn't even say BLP when you called the other editor crazy. Maybe you should have. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I can see no evidence whatsoever that anything 'works better than invective' - the facts of the matter are that Earl King Jr's repeated violations of WP:BLP policy have been repeatedly raised at WP:ANI - and repeatedly ignored. And no, I am not asking for a more strict BLP policy. I am asking that the existing policy - which explicitly states that it applies on talk pages - be enforced. Along with a requirement that contributors actually comply with the 'neutrality' they repeatedly accuse other of breaching, and that they don't use article ledes to promote their half-baked and contradictory conspiracy theories. And no, I don't see why I should have to mention WP:BLP policy explicitly when I point out that EKJ is using Wikipedia talk pages to accuse a named individual of a conspiracy involving "brainwashing", and concocting a political movement for personal financial gain. I would assume that anyone with basic skills in comprehension would understand why it was a problem. Maybe I am expecting too much though, and should cite Wikijargon in every sentence, just for the benefit of those who view this project as a MMORPG exercise in amateur bureaucratics, rather than as an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Ugh. There are actually people demanding that we characterise these as documentaries. Because obviously the gubmint did 9/11. Obviously. Attacks on Merola, we do not need. I would even step in to prevent attacks on his brother, propagandist for the vile Burzynski Clinic. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I would like Ani Admins. to block AndyTheGrump from editing Wikipedia because of his disregard for basic civility which is a cornerstone of editing here. Example [28] example taken from a request for comment on the Zeitgeist film series page. Another example from my user page [29] There is no doubt that he would not deny calling me a little shit also previously. Bringing up those old Ani's is probably not a good idea either. All of them were thrown out or dismissed. I am not saying I am the world best editor or that I do not make mistakes. Talk page discussions should not be dredged up from last year to prove some obscure point either about my being somehow violating editing guidelines. Discussion on a talk page should be free ranging for better articles. Personal attacks that are vicious, blatant and possibly designed to intimidate should not be used to make points. Andy has an extensive block record for doing what he is doing. I think another block is in order. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Accusing a named individual of engaging in "brainwashing" for personal financial gain is not an "obscure point" about "somehow violating editing guidelines" - it is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy. And as for 'civility', I recommend looking at EKJ's routine harassment of any individual he considers sympathetic to TZM - which usually consists of a lecture on 'neutrality' combined with unrestrained vitriol concerning the movement. The term cognitive dissonance springs to mind... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Block Abusive editing does not win the day. Making another personal attack here, on top of the Zeitgeist film series recent one at the RFC and the personal attack on my user page by Andy seems almost like he is asking to be blocked from editing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Pointing out that you have violated WP:BLP does not in any shape or form constitute a personal attack - and neither does pointing out your hypocrisy in supposedly espousing 'neutrality', while posting rants like this [30]AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that pointing out BLP violations is not a personal attack. There were personal attacks, which are not permitted, there appear to have been BLP violations, which are not permitted, and there were comments about BLP violations, and those are necessary. Within a few days, when ArbCom decides a few details, enforcement will go to Arbitration Enforcement. In the meantime, personal attacks on editors are still forbidden, and attacks on the subjects of BLP articles are still BLP violations that are not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Andy brought all that up after the fact and his given zero examples. Here we have Andy exaggerating liberally what ever point he is trying to make to the degree of again personally attacking he considers sympathetic to TZM - which usually consists of a lecture on 'neutrality' combined with unrestrained vitriol concerning the movement. The term cognitive dissonance springs to mind... How could it be that Andy thinks this is a good way to communicate his ideas? It shows a very comfomfortable mode of long extended personal attacking that for what ever reason no one has stopped permanently. Look at Andy's block history for more information. Its about time this person is stopped for trash talking other editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
"Trash talk"? as in this [31] example of bizarre logic where you cast aspersions on the validity of a source on the grounds that the journalist responsible was probably paid to write it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Bizarre logic Andy you will not let up. You can not make a point without adding personal diatribes which when gathered together end up being a vicious attack on the Zeitgeist page and my user page, as you have done here and elsewhere over a long period of time. It is not a reliable source was the point. Past consensus on the article agreed it was not a reliable source. Journalists normally get paid. Free ranging talk within reason on discussion pages is a non starter. Trying to make that into some kind extreme case by comments about users is not a good way to discuss things on the article, my user page or here to make any points you are trying to make. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The suggestion that a source is unreliable because the journalist responsible for it receives payment for his work is bizarre by any reasonable standards. That is what journalism as a profession entails - and your attempt to denigrate the journalist responsible by pointing out that he was probably paid for it was clearly intended to denigrate him as an individual. Just another example of the systematic bias you show with regards to anyone who doesn't accord with your personal enmity towards Joseph and TZM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I really think there is no place for your style of editing. I did not denigrate anyone. I pointed out that the Huffington Post thing is a blog. The past consensus on the page was to not use it. The current consensus is probably close to the past one. Why are you making up stuff like this Andy, Just another example of the systematic bias you show with regards to anyone who doesn't accord with your personal enmity towards Joseph and TZM. end quote. Is it in the best interests of editing for you to claim that? No I don't think so. What if I told you I find the Zeitgeist page and its supporters comical and I have no particular feeling about them beyond that? Why do you think you can diagnose peoples people on Wikipedia and make statements about their mental health? You continue an onslaught of bad will and tendentious infighting over something like a comment about a blog, blowing it out of proportion where you are constantly being an amateur Dr. of Psychology, do you think you are exhibiting cooperative editing skill? I understand rhetoric and your use of extreme highlighting of insignificant mentions on the article. All this reinforces my opinion that you are way over due for a site ban or long block. The larger point is that it is a non notable blog that is best left behind in regard to using good reliable sources. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I am well aware that you pointed out that the source was a blog. That is however irrelevant, since I haven't debated the fact. The simple verifiable and relevant fact here (which everyone can see I haven't been 'making up') is that you also suggested that because the journalist was probably paid to write it, that was also somehow grounds not to use it - an argument which were it to be accepted and applied elsewhere would decimate the referencing for almost every article on Wikipedia. Irrational by any definition. As for the remainder of your comments, I see no point in debating with you - your enmity towards Joseph and TZM is self-evident... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You lost the debate Andy when I posted the links on the Zeitgeist film page and my user page. Personal attacks and harassment seem to be a way of life for you as an editor [32]Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Given that nobody has offered the slightest support for you call that I be blocked from editing, I would have to suggest that your judgement of how this 'debate' has been going is somewhat open to question... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Wrong, Robert noted that you made personal attacks on me, but he is an involved person so is not going to do much except mention it here. Again your debate on my judgement is something you did in your personal attacks which I will repeat now over and over [33] and [34] since this Ani did not really start out as a call to block probably people are not focused that way. And, because of your personal attacks on me I am saying that you have lost the debate, lost credible interpretations of any kind of goodwill editing and have a long history of doing that kind of thing and should be taken off the project. I hope that is perfectly clear. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump I would like to personally ask you to please reflect on the tone and content of comments that you have made in talk page discussion between editors. Please, we need WP:No angry mastodons and as far as I can see that project page could pretty much have been written about you.
What I think would be of most help here is if you can show that "you understand what you are (potentially being) blocked (for)" as per content at: WP:Guide to appealing blocks. Please consider the, I would argue, disruptive effects of your editing. Comments of yours have included:
"... repeating your batshit-crazy conspiracy theories won't make them any more true. ..." as at 06:33, 3 June 2015 at Talk:Zeitgeist (film series)
Even on this page and while you have been involved in this discussion you delivered a retort as: "On the basis that I'm not a complete fucking imbecile" so as to imply that the other editor involved was "a complete fucking imbecile" as you did at 02:24, 6 June 2015.
Please can you give some kind of statement by way of acknowledgement of any understanding that you have with regard to the importance of these issues and any kind of reassurance that you can give as to any intention you may have to curb your unacceptable behaviours.
Please read advice given at WP:No angry mastodons#Edit when you're at your best including: "Get a glass of water. Walk around the block. Go wash the dishes. The feeling will pass after a few minutes and you will be less likely to write things you would regret afterward."
Please read, absorb, meditate on anything here or elsewhere that may help.
I will of course reflect on the mastodon essay. Though I wonder whether it might be appropriate to also reflect on the merits of creating an essay for your perusal on the merits of not repeatedly insisting that mice are in fact mastodons, in the face of multiple contributors providing evidence to the contrary.[35] Somehow, I don't think that either of us have shown our better sides here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump I genuinely wish you well with the angry mastodon issue. Then when a discussion was closed and when, for instance, my TP is open, you add WP:POINTy comment in an irrelevant location. I presented a large (3kB) OP on the, I think, important issue of Right of reply within contexts such as WP:AN/I. As far as I am aware this type of topic is relevant within the context of WP:AN which presents "Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices." I saw a lot of opinion and a lot of quibbling about terms that were used. Wikipedia prides itself on NPOV the preservation of the biographical reputations of living persons and yet we customarily engage in thread discussion with one way criticism of other editors within which the editor concerned may be the only person that cannot contribute.
You explicitly referred to a comment I made in the thread you started. I exercised my 'right of reply' by pointing out that your own behaviour in the thread was open to question. Like I said, I don't think that either of us have shown our better sides here. I at least have acknowledged that. You appear not to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
That does not seem fair at all. I just complained about Andy making personal attacks on me. How does that deserve a block or topic ban? I gave examples. I would be perfectly happy if he just said he was sorry and would move on. If someone calls you bat shit crazy etc. why should that be tolerated. If someone calls you 'a little shit' at these things why is that tolerated. Since this was brought here and not by me I made some comments. Andy seldom edits that topic area so a topic ban would not even affect him to any degree. If you want to deescalate this lets just ask Andy to stop insulting people. What he does is way beyond grumpy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment. It should be noted that it was Robert McClenon who started this thread - to accuse me (or Earl for that matter) of using it 'as a forum' would therefore seem to imply that he thinks we have no right to respond. That, as far as I'm aware, isn't Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block of Andy the Grump engaging with Earl King Jr. in this location on any topic that does not directly concern him. GregKaye17:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
MarnetteD If you think that a block, which might help get a message across, would only be punitive, what would you suggest? as Earl King Jr. has, I think, fairly expressed, "If you want to deescalate this lets just ask Andy to stop insulting people. What he does is way beyond grumpy." Having read this and the related page I certainly endorse the "Request Admin Eyes at Talk: Zeitgeist (film series)". GregKaye08:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Neutral as to topic-ban for both, as alternative to block. This is getting nowhere and they both need to be stopped, either by blocks or by topic-bans. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment. A topic ban on us both would be fine by me - since I withdrew from the topic some time back, and only became involved again as a result of EKJ's further abuse of Wikipedia talk pages as a means to further his personal enmity towards Joseph and TZM, and as a consequence of observing his repeated attacks on the integrity of other contributors at WP:DRN. If Earl is topic-banned, I will have no reason to involve myself further in this colossal time-sink. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment It can be noted Robert McClenon who started this thread - to draw attention to the page and its problems was acting in a positive to help the article. Being penalized for discussion here would therefore seem to imply that he thinks we have no right to respond. That, as far as I'm aware, isn't Wikipedia policy. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Going back to the first edits of Earl King Jr., in Marc 2012, virtually all edits are to Zeitgeist and related articles (post-scarcity economy, Venus project etc). AndyTheGrump has been here longer and has a far more varied editing pattern.
There is, at this time, no obvious consensus to block either. A topic ban on Earl King Jr. would in my view reduce drama. AndyTheGrump is sanguine about the idea of a topic ban, which is entirely in line with an edit history which shows no obvious fixation on this topic.
I would say that a topic ban of Earl King Jr. is the only action supported by the evidence at this time. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
That does not seem fair at all. I just complained about Andy making personal attacks on me. How does that deserve a topic ban? I gave examples [36] and [37]. I am not an [38] just a person that has in interest in related subjects. Why should AndyTheGrump act with impunity making personal attacks? Single purpose editors are just as valuable as others but I edit a variety of things. Single purpose editors that are not neutral or at least trying to be are a problem. I don't fit into that niche. Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
No topic ban For Earl (me) How is it that Andy seems to have no consequences despite his continued personal attacks that are documented? Bringing up personal attacks by Andy gets me topic banned? No. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I am a beginner to creating pages. I have been working on two drafts and have submitted them, however they got rejected. Since this has happened, I brilliantly lost my password for the account and did not have an email associated with it. I've tried to search for help on this and found that I would have to open up a new account and "move" the pages to my account. However, since they were drafts, I can't access them. Can you tell me how in the world I resolve this? I don't want to lose the pages I worked so hard on, as I know there is a time limit on them. Any help is much appreciated.
@Hollywoodresources: Drafts are (or at least can be) community edited, any account can improve drafts and submit them (indeed, I've done this myself eg: The Minories, Colchester when I've wanted to get seriously stuck in and help). I certainly wouldn't speedy delete Draft:Summer Moore but in its current state, plus a brief news search, I'm not sure if I could salvage it to the point of acceptance right now, as sources seem to be of a gossipy / tabloid nature. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Lately, especially in the last days, it feels like we're on Titanic after already hitting the iceberg and taking in water, but before starting to sink.
Everywhere we look, there are backlogs building up. I just had a look at WP:SPI where there are open cases stretching back to April. WP:ANV looks good right now, but I've frequently seen a 10-hour backlog during which vandals manage a lot of damage. At WP:ANI, more and more discussions are never closed. I'd say an unclosed report is always a bit of a failure; many are not good but could be still be closed. We've come to a situation where backlogs are now feeding themselves. For instance, the lack of a attention to a user's unblock request led to a rant on WP:ANI[39]. (The request was perhaps unfounded, but then it could have been turned down). Despite the pointy cabal accusations, the subsequent discussion showed that many users (and admins) have noted this same problem. Same thing today, again a post on WP:ANI about the lack of attention [40]. In fairness, it was dealt with rather quickly, but it was such an obvious case it could have been quicker. These are just a few examples, but I see more and more such examples and, worryingly enough, more and more good, serious users as well as admins commenting on it [41], [42], [43], [44]. I'm not saying there's one single case that is very serious (I haven't seen it) and I certainly have launched no unaddressed report myself that would require immediate admin intention. But the general picture is beginning to look worrying. Admins do a fantastic job here, an unpaid and voluntary job and the usual "thanks" is abuse and insults and accusations. The last thing I intend is to accuse any admin, and I don't think any other established user do either. Notwithstanding that admins do all they can, though, if this situation continues, Wikipedia will be in problem. The whole structure is reliant on vandals, socks, conflicts and disruptive users being addressed quickly. The more time it takes, the more damage is done which in turns require more time to sort out, and which can push serious users away, and we're quickly entering a downward spiral. Not calling for any quick fix, nor for admin attention to any specific issue, but for a good discussion about what we can all do.Jeppiz (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, those discussions are very relevant. I agree with the premise. Given the current situation, I think extending some responsibilities to established users in rather straightforward matters would free up some time for admins to focus on the more complex issues.Jeppiz (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
While we can certainly use more admins, I disagree with some of what your pointing to. To start with AIV, it is rare for a blatant case of vandalism, were the vandal was fully warned, (4 escalating warnings followed by another act of vandalism) to not result in a quick block. If there is a report there more than 60 minutes old, it is almost always a more ambiguous case. For example, I'm very cautious about blocking genre warriors reported to AIV, because my own understanding of Genre sucks; not in a position to make a judgement either way, genre warrior reports pile up, and may not be actioned for a few hours, creating an appearance that AIV has a long backlog, when it only sort of does. As for reports on AN/I not being closed, until a year or two ago, reports at AN/I were not regularly closed unless it was a specific proposal that needed a consensus determination. Not every thread on AN/I needs to have a definitive outcome, sometimes they just fizzle out and the issue doesn't arise again. There are real backlogs, but its typically not critical time sensitive things like active vandalism, but things like RM, where another month is annoying, but wont be the end of the world. Monty84519:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I would probably describe it more as "on the decline" than "on the brink of collapse". I don't really have any "big picture" solutions for you though. I've just been trying to do my part, ie I've recently learned and started contributing to CSD for the first time in these last few months. Sergecross73msg me19:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I spend some time at AIV, and Monty's assessment is in the right direction. The majority of the backlog isn't accounts that need to be blocked, it's bad reports that need to be declined. I'd say that, most days, far more than 50% of the reports I respond to are not valid AIV reports, and I have to spend a considerable amount of time crafting an explanation as to why they are being declined, usually some variation of "Vandalism is not a synonym for edits I disagree with". Most of the old AIV reports are simply ones admins have looked at and decided no block was needed, but didn't bother to write a decline rationale. You can know this by watching the history of AIV, where the really obvious vandals often only remain mere minutes, but the "This guy keeps changing the genre and I don't like it!" stuff hangs around a long time. The backlog would go away at AIV (and I suspect many other boards) if over-eager vigilantes would stop biting the newbs and creating frivolous reports that have to get dealt with. --Jayron3201:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Jayron, I take your word for it and I'm sure there are lots of bad reports, possibly even bad faith reports. As I said, none of what I address here is a criticism of any admin decision, there is no particular case that made me comment but rather a thought building up over several weeks. I have seen some obvious vandals (who eventually were blocked) remain much longer, but could it perhaps also be a matter of time zones? While English Wikipedia is fairly global, I'd still guess there could be times when there are less admins around than at other times. As as I also said, AIV is probably the least worrisome of the different places I mentioned.Jeppiz (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Jayron, would a verbose but standard template be useful to you in declining those inappropriate reports? I'm thinking about something that includes a Venn diagram drawing, to explain that vandalism is only one type of unwanted ("bad") edit—"edits that create problems" and the subset of "edits that create problems and the editor was intentionally trying to create problems". Or maybe we should try better instructions. I have some ideas; I'll post them at WT:AIV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe in templates. If someone is worth talking to, they're worth my time to directly talk to them, not templating. I never use user talkpage warning templates. If I feel the need to explain something to someone on their user talk page, I have the decency and respect to leave a personalized message, TYVM. --Jayron3219:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There are a few things that could be done. The most logical (and, unfortunately, the most unlikely) would be to tighten registration procedures to ban IP editing and require some sort of significant registration process to edit. This would reduce vandalism by an enormous percentage, lightening workload. Second would be an unbundling of tools to enlarge the anti-vandalism force. Third would be an expansion of the pool of administrators through an easing of the RFA process. We approved a record low 22 new admins in 2014 and are on a pace to set a new record low in 2015. Desysopping of inactive administrators will once again top the 50 mark. There are less than 600 administrators with 30 or more edits in the last 2 months, which is a very loose definition of "active." The question is: how many are really needed? Carrite (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the IP aspect. A vast majority of the vandalism and misconduct I have to deal with comes from IPs who feel they can hide behind the veil of anonymity. As long as registration is free, I personally don't think that it violates the "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" mantra, though from what I've observed, there's quite an opposition to this though, correct? Sergecross73msg me13:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
There are two theories here that could do with being tested and proved, qualified or refuted. The first is that allowing IP editing is the secret sauce that built this site, partly because a large proportion of goodfaith editors start with a few IP edits before they create an account. The second is that most vandals will do the minimum necessary to vandalise wikipedia - so if we require them to create accounts they will do so and thereby become harder to spot, and the editors we lose by requiring registration will predominately be goodfaith ones. Personally I'd expect to see either theory if properly tested would give sufficient grounds to justify continued IP editing. But if someone persuaded the WMF to do the research and both theories were tested and refuted then I would be willing to change my view . ϢereSpielChequers05:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Monty, well argued disagreement is always the best thing. Support is nice, badly argued disagreement annoying, but well argued disagreement is both nice and instructive. I agree that I've only rarely see AIV with a big backlog, though those rare occasions are all recent. I agree it's not the my main concern. About AN/I, I would argue that closure is always a good thing. Quite a large number of unclosed cases tend to come back sooner rather than later. I'm not saying that does not happen with closed cases, but if a case has been closed and comes back without any major development, it's a very easy close by just referring to the old one. Even though closing cases take some time, I'd posit it may be a time saver in the long run. And Sergecross73, of course "on the decline" is a more accurate description than on the brink of collapse, pardon my somewhat dramatical exaggeration. But ideally, we would not want decline either, right? Carrite, I think you nail it, thanks for those very relevant (and slightly worrying) statistics. With an already low number of active admins, and an actual decline in the number of admins both in 2014 and (on current trends) in 2015, it's little wonder the situation is becoming more difficult. While I agree with Sergecross73 about decline rather than collapse, it's not rare than a slow decline rapidly becomes a large decline when a critical point is reached. The harder it gets to edit and admin, the less admins and good users are likely to stay, making it still harder to edit and admin, and downwards we go.Jeppiz (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
How is this their problem in particular, out of all the people who might help? I'm thinking of the 500 to 600 admins who are still editing regularly, the Wikipedians who could probably become admins if they ran at RfA, and non-admins, who only differ from admins in not having extra buttons to push. Who would want to run for RfA if being a new admin makes you responsible for problems that aren't yours? - Dank (push to talk) 12:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
No backlog is anyone's problem, but all these alluded to helping out with backlogs, and surprise surprise, none of them have stepped up to the challenge. I picked those three as they were the most visable. You'd expect them to at least being active. I guess not. And speaking of the other 500 to 600 admins - what the hell are they all doing? I bet if anyone started a thread on this very board questioning one of them, it would be locked down in no time at all, but when there's work to be done, they're nowhere to be seen. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, my goal here isn't to get this page "locked down" when you or anyone says something uncomfortable about what admins are or aren't doing; you're asking reasonable questions. There's work to be done here that's not getting done, and there's a wide range of approaches the community might take to make the workload a little easier or get more people doing the work ... I don't have a position on that, and I'd prefer to stay neutral. Until the community makes some progress on this, the best we can hope for is to at least avoid various negative feedback loops that might make the problem worse. For instance, if new admins become scapegoats for the larger problem, then obviously, we'll have fewer new admins. (Not that you're scapegoating them, but that's the risk of focusing on the newest admins.) OTOH, it wouldn't be inappropriate to get the word out to all active admins, and to everyone else who might be willing to help, that we're falling behind on some things that we probably don't want to fall behind on, and help would be appreciated (help of any kind that lightens the load or gets more work done ... for instance, help with triage, or making the jobs easier, or figuring out better ways to delegate work, or increasing throughput at RfA). - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Everyone is a volunteer here, not an employee. The problems are not the fault of the 500-600 remaining admins, they are the fault of the stupidity that is RFA. Of course there's going to be a gradual reduction in admins; people lose interest, get jobs, have families, and all the other things that reduce their time to edit here. When I passed RfA in 2007 I had plenty of time to edit Wikipedia; now I don't. I get a few minutes here and there, or if I have a bit of time I hit the AfD backlog for a little while. But the facts are these; in 2014 there were 34 succesful RfAs ... in 2007 there were 408. Until the community gets its act together and makes RfA easier to pass (or gets rid of some of the stupidity that causes admins to not bother any more), the situation will continue to deteriorate. Black Kite (talk)18:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
22 in 2014, and we're on track to produce fewer this year. It's not as bleak as it sounds, but there are decisions that need to be made. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I would run for RfA and reduce the backlog if someone could only convince me that one of the following isn't true: [A] I would go through hell during the RfA, and [B] I would almost certainly lose the election. In other words, I would tolerate going through hell if I thought that there was a chance of winning, and I would take my chances despite almost certain failure if doing so did not involve going through hell. I just want to help the encyclopedia in wikignomish ways and have zero desire for "power" over others.
BTW, I know exactly how to become an admin. Stop getting involved in discussions at AN, ANI, RSN, etc,, stop mediating at DRN, pick a poor-quality, uncontroversial article that nobody seems to be editing or watching and create high-quality content, withdrawing and moving on if anyone disagrees with me in any way, and repeat that pattern for at least a year. In other words, avoid anything that in any way resembles what an administrator is asked to do. Again, I do want to help but the price is too high. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC).
I agree with User:Guy Macon. The procedure to become an admin has become one of avoiding all controversies and bringing a few articles up to FA status; but bringing articles up to FA status has nothing to do with how the mop is used. The RFA process is seriously broken, and gives too much attention to editors who have Enemies Lists. The English Wikipedia community is not about to come up with a consensus on how to fix RFA. It is time for the WMF to do something, but the WMF thinks that the English Wikipedia is a grand success story, which it is if one looks only at the numbers of articles and editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't see the community as collectively misbehaving or slow-witted, on this or any issue. I think we decided in previous RfCs that the best course was to avoid any drastic changes ... and, knowing as little as I know, I'm not in a position to say that was the wrong call. I'm not sure how we proceed if a future RfC determines that something should be done, but we can't agree on what to do; that's going to require some finesse. - Dank (push to talk) 16:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
That's all true, to be an admin you have to do things which you wouldn't expect an admin to do and even then do you really want to go through an RFA only to receive your new toys but with a higher scrutiny and a reluctance to ever use them because someone is waiting for you to trip up? I don't gnome in any big way, stuck to RFPP these days but I'd still like to take on the dumb mundane tasks nobody else wants to, we need admins who'll do gruntwork other admins wouldn't because they were selected as content creators, not for their skills in actual areas where an admin is necessary. I wouldn't ever pass an RFA as it stands now so most of this is moot besides the fact we really have no clue how to gain new admins that'll use the tools anymore than how to retain editors. tutterMouse (talk) 06:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: I've checked the logs for the three new admins you mention, all have easily enough logged admin actions since their RFAs to qualify as active admins, so I think it unfair to single them out - may I suggest you strike your "none of them have stepped up to the challenge. I picked those three as they were the most visable. You'd expect them to at least being [sic] active." We do have admins who have yet to perform a hundred logged actions, none of those three are in that group, and I suspect some who are are among the admins who got the bit in order to get rollback before it was unbundled. We may once have had new admins going through RFA and then not using the tools, but I don't see that happening now. ϢereSpielChequers16:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
That assumes they knew they you were criticising them and they had something to reply to. How did you inform them of this thread? I don't see a note from you on their talkpages. ϢereSpielChequers07:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
They were linked in my initial post with the username template, so the notification system would have alerted them to this thread. So they either don't have that function turned on (which would be odd in their role) or they've chosen to ignore this. I'll go with the latter. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead09:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Your ping to User:Opabinia regalis would not have worked because you corrected the user name in a second edit—notifications do not respond to such edits because that would re-notify any correctly listed users. In addition, there have been reports of apparently correct notifications not being received, so in general they should not be relied on. Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I love how they're being defended to the bitter end. You'd think a board titled Administrators' noticeboard with the heading "This page is for posting information and issues that affect administrators" would be looked at by administrators on a regular basis. C'mon, lets hear the next poor excuse for them. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead11:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I did get a ping and looked at some of the entries in WP:CFD, but decided the oldest needed too much background knowledge for me to make an effective judgement call on any of them. I meant to report this back but got sidetracked with real life. Lugnuts, you could always try stepping up to the mantle and request an RfA nomination yourself, particularly if you've identified an area of deficiency. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There are inevitably parts of a 5,000,000 article domain (not to metion so many multiples of administrations) that never stood up, so collapse is not possible. Effective triage still occurs, but whole swathes are built not to be cared about. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Fundamentally, a consensus driven organization where everyone can participate will never be efficient. It has wonderful virtues, but efficiency is not one of them. If one has to be efficient, one needs fixed authority, and thebest part of our approach to vandalism is some purely mechanical operations, such as the edit filters. I think that part of the problem is our tendency to prefer discussion to work. Looking both here and at ANI, for example, or at some of the other noticeboards, we are spending an inordinate amount of time to decide simple questions, including repeating ones. Some of it is inevitable because we have no way of permanently fixing decisions nor is it easy to think of how a consensus based system could do so. (NOT PRINT is a handicap here, not a help; with print, what is printed is printed & the discussions are limited to the new items) . But some of it could be helped by an agreement on focus and time limits. There are too many of us (myself sometimes included) who often seem to be here primarily to show off how well we can argue. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't improve on what Jeppiz said above: "The harder it gets to edit and admin, the less admins and good users are likely to stay, making it still harder to edit and admin, and downwards we go." The question for me is whether any kind of negative feedback loops are kicking in yet, and if so, what we can do about that, before people get discouraged and the problem becomes harder to solve. Does anyone want to offer to look at supply-and-demand problems concerning admin-related work over the next month or so and make some kind of report? Does anyone want to offer to help close some relevant RfC in about a month? - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC) (I don't mean this should be formal, only that it would be nice to give everyone a month so everyone gets a chance to have a say and no one is rushed, just as we do for RfCs.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The sad part is that, were I to become an admin, working on various backlogs is pretty much the only admin work I would do. I really have no desire to deal with difficult editors and their behavior problems using any tool other than persuasion. Boring, repetitive work, on the other hand, is very relaxing to me after my real-life job of dealing with disputes between engineers. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Is there a level of adminship that would allow a worker drone to be upgraded to have powers of deletion? I'm guessing not, but Guy highlights a good point that would help. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead08:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Deletion is harder to unbundle than blocking. I can't remember the last time we had an RFA fail because the candidate had been making overzealous AIV reports, but we get plenty of RFAs fail because the community doesn't think the candidate is ready for the deletion button. I can think of several RFAs that have failed because the candidate had been overzealous with tagging for speedy deletion at Newpage patrol. ϢereSpielChequers09:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Difficulty of unbundling certain tools seems like a problem, but it really isn't. If we as a community decided that we wanted to unbundle deletion, we could simply have RfAs for no-deletion admins, have them promise not to delete, and desysop them if they do. There are all sorts of things admins are not allowed to do that are technically allowed by the Wikimedia software. This would simply become one more of them. There are zero technical obstacles to unbundling. The only obstacle is that we have not agreed that unbundling is something that we want to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the successful unbundlings such as template editing, file mover and of course Rollbacker, there are some common threads. These are tools that can be used independently of the rest of the admin toolset, there are people who wouldn't pass RFA but we would trust with that tool and the solution was to actually separate the tool so it could be given out on its own (I don't know why, but there are a number of RFA !voters who will oppose candidates who give undertakings that they will never use certain parts of the toolset). Blocking new and unregistered vandals fits all those criteria, and non admins can judge whether the block was a good one or not. Unbundling deletion would be a very different kettle of fish - I can't see how anyone could be trusted to delete but not to be an admin, non admins cannot check deleted pages to see if they agree with deletions. ϢereSpielChequers08:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've been keeping an eye on RFA numbers and admin numbers for several years now, and at first glance we have a huge problem with RFA having collapsed in early 2008. But first glances are notoriously misleading, the early 2008 change at RFA came immediately after the unbundling of Rollback, we have since had thousands of rollbackers appointed, and many of us support the flip side of that - "good vandalfighter" is no longer sufficient qualification to pass RFA, some examples of adding reliably sourced content are now required. If Rollback had been unbundled a couple of years earlier I believe many vandalfighting admins would never have gone through RFA. Of course the logical corollary of that is that we should also unbundle "block Ips and Newbies" so that vandalfighters can block vandals but only admins can block or unblock the regulars. The subsequent decline is more troubling and has put us below replacement level, but the good thing is that once people become admins they usually stick around for a long time. So whilst I think the current situation unhealthy, and it can't be a good thing that eventually we will have insufficient admins, but at present I worry more because of the wikigeneration gulf that has emerged between an admin cadre dominated by people who have been admins for many years and an active editing community many of whom rightly or wrongly see adminship as out of reach. To me we will have entered a negative feedback stage when our remaining admins start giving up the tools because the number of stray requests on their talkpage to use the admin tools interferes with their hobby of editing, and from my own experience that is not even close. That said new and returning admins would be welcome, there are plenty of active editors who could easily pass RFA if they ran (if you think that might be you feel free to email me). ϢereSpielChequers08:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I think there is probably a tipping point for successful RfAs. Candidates need experience, and that bar has risen substantially over the years, but the longer someone has been here the more chance there is that they have upset some people and that those people will come out of the woodwork. I am an extreme example but there is a running gag about how many sockfarms and POV pushers would turn up at any RfA by me. - Sitush (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
There used to be a theory that if you hadn't made admin before you completed 10,000 edits you never would, that theory has been long disproved, now we even have one or two !voters who will oppose candidates who have done less than 10,000 edits. As for the idea that the longer you are editing the more wiki enemies you acquire, I don't see RFA working that way, opposers who drag up old examples are likely to get a response along the lines of "thanks for demonstrating that the candidate wasn't ready two years ago, do you have any examples that would be relevant to this RFA?" though usually more diplomatically phrased. There are some issues that don't get an editor banned but would torpedo an RFA, however in my experience the RFA community is very focussed on recent months, things from years back are relevant if they show that someone has a skill, not if they used not to have it. ϢereSpielChequers09:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It's pleasant that there is some social pushback against "ancient history" votes, but does a reply like that actually change the vote? After posting a comment like that, do you see people changing their votes from "I am voting against this candidate, because I'm still holding a grudge from five years ago" to "Sure, I guess I support that editor after all"? Or does it stay with "I'm still voting against that candidate, even if WSC doesn't respect my rationale"? RFA is fundamentally vote-driven, and bureaucrats can only exercise a limited amount of discretion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I honestly can't remember any votes that I would dismiss as "holding a grudge from five years ago". But sometimes yes challenging opposes does change a individual vote, more often it sways other !voters. Just look at how this one went from April 25/26 to the end result, yes at least one oppose was struck but more importantly the pattern of voting switched and it ended as a success. On that occasion one issue was whether we judge a former admin on her previous RFA or on the many admin actions she had done after that RFA. We had another one earlier in the year where a candidate was opposed partly because some of their early articles were recently deleted, unfortunately we weren't able to turn that round before the candidate withdrew, but one of the opposers did strike part of their rationale. I'm fairly sure that the opposers in that RFA were assuming that recently having articles tagged for deletion meant recently creating articles that merited deletion, and that the RFA would have gone differently if the nominator had had access to deleted revisions and pointed out that the candidate had created articles on some not quite notable subjects years ago but hadn't objected to them recently being deleted. The later you are in an RFA the harder it is to turn it round, but I have seen RFAs collapse on day 6 or 7, and also seen RFAS that were heading for no consensus turn into successes. ϢereSpielChequers06:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Content creation work without the tools is incredibly painful. I would happily do piles of boring admin tasks just to have them back. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Why? I don't see that at all. It is frustrating having to run around to find an admin but we cannot use tools where we are involved anyway, so there should be no pain due to lack of holding them. - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of simple actions that you can do yourself where WP:INVOLVED does not apply because they are uncontroversial and undisputed. The most common is moving pages from your draft space to the mainspace. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, like that. It leaves behind a redirect. Like me, you have multiple sandboxes and intend to reuse it by overwriting the redirect with another article. But when you have multiple articles to move you have to resort to a CSD request to remove the the redirect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Isolated cases of vandalism don't seem to be an existential threat because the problem will tend to be self-correcting — when readers notice significant vandalism, they will tend to mobilise to correct it. The biggest issue seems to be structural problems which require deep knowledge and access rights to correct. For example, AFD is kept running by some mix of templates, bots, tradition and whatever-else. I have been patrolling it for years but still don't fully understand its ramshackle structure. Today, I was reviewing the daily contents at WP:AFD/T and noticed that the list of discussions had a huge list of other stuff embedded in it. I think I've found the cause but am not sure I should interfere. Anyway, my point is that structural glitches like that pose the biggest threat because they make it difficult for the general mass of readers and editors to engage with and resolve the individual detail problems. Andrew D. (talk) 09:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism is a massive problem and a very serious one for BLPs etc, which extends a lot further than articles just about individual people. AfD is trivial by comparison and is also "self-correcting" in the sense that unless an article is salted, it can be recreated. In fact, it can be recreated even after salting, just not under the same title. - Sitush (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
One of my hopes for WP:Flow is to (eventually) replace the ramshackle deletion structures with a purpose-built workflow tool that does exactly what we want, automatically, every time, with very little need for bots and manually applied templates. (Also, if Commons' proposes to delete an image that is in use here, then I want to be able to read and participate in their deletion process without leaving the English Wikipedia.) Then we can focus on the actual content, rather than the infrastructure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
If I were a closer in a relevant RfC, I'd have to pay more attention than usual to the mountain of text already devoted to the subject, and I'd be sifting through all the suggestions to try to find where they intersect in some kind of minimal recommended change, on the "do no harm" theory. - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
And one more thing. (You can tell I'm a Wikipedian, I'm replying to myself.) Every time there's an RfC involving RfA, the throughput at RfA goes up ... and then drops down lower than before afterwards. So even if people are making the argument during the RfC that that month's numbers at RfA aren't worrying, the projected number of first-time admins for 2015 that I would be using if the RfC started today would be 12, because RfA has only produced 5 first-time admins over the last 5 months (along with 3 former admins who regained the tools at RfA ... that's an important number too, but it's a different number). - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I remember when I first started diving into doing a lot of editing back in 2013, I thought about trying an RfA. I even got a little encouragement. But after looking at a few respected editors' evaluation lists for RfA candidates, I didn't see how anyone who hadn't devoted themselves to extensively editing a wide variety of areas of Wikipedia for less than 3-5 years could ever pass. And that is assuming that they haven't made a lot of enemies! And that's really weird when you look at old RfAs and find editors becoming admins after three months of editing and less than 1,000 edits.
I look at Oppose votes in RfAs and sometimes they are cast as a result of a single bad call at an AfD or a bad encounter between editors, especially the Opposes that come later on during the week can seem a bit random and offer no explanation. Some editors see decent, qualified editors get shot down at an RfA and decide, "Why put myself through that?" It doesn't help that a fair number of editors who are unsuccessful at an RfA end up then leaving Wikipedia.
If I could change the RfA process, I'd make editing at places like the Help desk, the reference desks, DRN or the Teahouse just as important as writing an FA. It seems to me that being an effective admin relies more on people skills than content creation. Just my 2 cents. LizRead!Talk!22:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
There has long been a concern amongst some editors that admins in general don't adequately appreciate heavy content contributors,(and thus treat such contributors less favorably than we should when it comes to deleting their hard work, or blocking them) and that the solution is to recruit admins only from those who are themselves heavy content contributors. I think this as faded a fair bit at RFA in the last couple years, but even when it was still going strong, it was possible to get through RFA without a huge amount of content work. You just needed to be a good candidate in other respects, and proactively try to address their concerns. But then very few people are perfect, coming to RFA prepared, knowing what people are going to see as deficiencies, and being prepared to address their concerns goes a long way, even if it flies in the face of the no-big-deal mantra. Monty84500:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think Liz is right. If you want more admins, then you need to stop making RFA feel like a fraternity hazing program. It's not enough to point out the irony between the "no big deal" fairy tale and the reality (which is more like "preparing for the US presidential debate" than like "no big deal"). You have to actually stop punishing candidates for applying. And if you want good ones, then you need to focus on people who have specialized skills (e.g., tech or copyright) or who are good at dealing with people and dispute resolution. It's far more important for admins to be able to deal with people than to produce brilliant prose. People get desysopped for treating people poorly, not for grammar errors or boring writing styles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
We used to require at least one FA before an RfA, but when we tightened the FA requirements, it was felt that this was too tough on some editors who might otherwise become good admins. We should reinstate the requirement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of that short-lived requirement was a bunch of "featured portals" that nobody cared about enough to maintain. It was a pure hoop-jumping exercise, and I'm glad that the requirement was killed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
@Monty845 and WhatamIdoing, I don't recall RfAs that required candidates to be "heavy" content contributors. What I remember – and still support – is the principle that admins should have demonstrable hands-on experience of finding reliable sources, defending them on article talk pages and successfully incorporating them into articles. Candidate's specialized knowledge or people techniques are irrelevant if they don't have the basic skills we look for in every editor. - Pointillist (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be everyone. If only 5% of respondents personally choose to vote against anyone without "heavy" content contributions, then those 5% oppose votes will break some candidates (and discourage even more from applying).
I wonder, though, if you've really thought through your comment about "specialized knowledge". Does a Lua programmer actually need to know how to incorporate sources into an article to be useful to us? How about a copyright specialist? For a person whose intended role is saying "Yup, another copyvio at AFC, push the delete button" a hundred times a month, does it really matter if that person can create a well-sourced article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, I've thought this through plenty of times. What you are describing is an argument for unbundling in specialist areas such as copyright. Anyone who has the power to block a contributor should demonstrate that they can perform the basic tasks for creating article content. - Pointillist (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Pointillist, please explain this. Imagine that I've got expert knowledge about copyright law (clearly a hypothetical scenario ;-). Imagine that I've never created an article and don't have much interest in doing so. How will my hypothetical lack of experience in writing articles impair my ability to apply WP:COPYVIO correctly, including (if necessary) blocking a user who persists in adding wholesale copyright violations to Wikipedia?
I'm not actually arguing for unbundling (e.g., so that copyvio experts can delete but can't block). I'm trying to figure out how not being proficient at writing articles would make me (the hypothetical copyvio expert) be incompetent at handing copyvio-related admin tasks, i.e., at handling an admin task that has nothing to do with writing articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, if the hypothetical expert were purely performing deletions of 100% copyvio material, without any discussion and without any blocking, it might be OK. But that's an extreme scenario. We would be giving all the tools to the expert, but trusting that he/she wouldn't use them any purpose other than copyvio deletions. It is in effect unbundling but based on a promise by the user rather than technical means, similar to Trappist the monk's RfA, where the candidate requested adminship basically on a temporary basis pending the decision about creating the unbundled Template editor user right. Nevertheless, the candidate was expected to demonstrate "clear, civil communication skills" and "articles to which they've added reliably sourced content" (see support !vote by WereSpielChequers (talk·contribs)). The thing is that it's hard to trust someone without having seen them working with other people on articles, so I would recommend that your expert show some willingness to contribute in that way. In the answer to his RfA Q2 Trappist the monk said "I have done enough content creation to know that my interests lie elsewhere". That's all we need to know. - Pointillist (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I would be concerned if we had an admin or indeed anyone removing copyvio without "clear, civil communication skills". I suspect that copyvio is often a "goodfaith" error made by people who need to be guided into writing things in their own words and citing them to reliable sources. So I can make a stronger case for an admin specialising in copyvio removal needing to communicate how to put things in your own words and reliably cite them than someone like me who fixes typos, deletes vandalism and actions user requests for U1 and G7 deletion. ϢereSpielChequers17:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Entirely agree with your good faith + communication points. Personally I don't believe a purely "Yup, another copyvio at AFC, push the delete button" admin role really exists, but I was sidestepping that issue to make a wider point about single-purpose admins. - Pointillist (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that communication skills are necessary. What I don't agree is that it is necessary to create article content to be able to do the necessary things for working in this area, which are:
accurately determining whether or not an edit is a copyright violation,
deleting pages that must be deleted because of copyright laws,
communicating with the editors who made the copyright mistakes, and
(yes, actually) blocking editors who persist in flagrant copyvios despite ample education on the subject.
So let me repeat my question, perhaps more clearly: If you had an otherwise perfect admin candidate, except that this candidate had never created so much as a stub (but had made tens of thousands of edits to clean up other people's copyvios), then which of these four steps would the candidate be incompetent at?
The one in which he uses expert legal knowledge? Nope, that's not it.
The one in which he pushes a button to delete the page? Nope, that's not it.
The one in which he talks to people? Nope, a brief glance at ANI proves that's not it, because we have lots of "content creators" with poor social skills and many "non-content creators" who are great at dealing with editors (especially new ones).
The one in which he pushes another button to prevent people from continuing to cause legal problems? Nope, that's not it.
That's the end of my list. His "failure" to create articles doesn't seem to be relevant to any of these. You are claiming not only that this candidate would be bad at something in this process, but also that if he wrote a couple of GAs, then he'd suddenly have some important skills and knowledge that would help him perform these four tasks. I'd like to know exactly what directly relevant skills he acquires through the content creation process, that he cannot have any other way—what skills he does not have, but must have, so that we could justify treating this as a "requirement", even informally.
Alternatively, you could perhaps conclude, as I did, that content creation is logically not especially relevant for every single admin, and that therefore we should not speak of it as a "requirement", even informally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing writing content and creating new articles can be very different things as far as RFA is concerned. We have millions of articles that could be expanded, improved or just referenced. I vaguely recollect one oppose !vote for a candidate who had never started a new article, I've seen several oppose votes for candidates who had created new articles that were good enough for a newbie to have done but insufficient for an admin, and I'm sure there have been RFAs that have failed for that reason. So to answer your specific question, the fact that your candidate had never created a completely new article would be irrelevant. Whether or not they had demonstrated sufficient communication skills to be an admin should be easily determined from looking at their talkpage and other interactions - you don't need to have written content to have demonstrated sufficient communication skills to be an admin, and there are some very good content contributors who are not admins because of their lack of tact and diplomacy in dealing with other editors. But knowing how to explain reliable sourcing to someone who has contributed CopyVio is best judged by looking at the content that they have cited to reliable sources, and the way they have responded to people whose contributions they have removed. To pass RFA your candidate would need to convince the community that they know how to do this. An admin who specialises in removing copyvio will get lots of queries from people who want to learn how to do edits that will be accepted. Those of us who want to make the pedia a less bitey place know that candidates such as the one you described have to be checked and only made admin if they can be trusted to communicate our sourcing standards clearly and civilly. ϢereSpielChequers09:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that I agree with this. First of all, a person need not explain "reliable sourcing" to explain "copyright violations"; copypasta and close paraphrasing aren't about the reliability of the sources. Secondly, I'd have thought that "knowing how to explain reliable sourcing to someone who has contributed CopyVio is best judged by" looking at how the candidate actually explained that subject (and more importantly, quotations and close paraphrasing) to people who contributed copyvios, rather than by "looking at the content that they have cited to reliable sources". It sounds like you're using content creation as a marker for the skill that you want, when you could be directly assessing the skill that you actually want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, I found another example that might help this discussion. In 2010, DeltaQuad's first RfA failed 65/34/12, principally for lack of content creation. At Oppose !vote #6 Kraftlos (talk·contribs) gave a vivid summary of my view: "It's not so much that you rack up experience or have certain barnstars or awards. It's just that someone who does not contribute to articles shouldn't be making authoritative decisions about content such as AfD, vandalism, or any number of other disputes that required admin attention. It is all about empathy. Besides, we're all here to build an encyclopedia. Admins should at least know how to do that." Now the reason I mention this is that in DeltaQuad's second RfA a year the same concerns were expressed but the candidate had worked so effectively in SPI and UAA in the interim that there was much more confidence in how they would engage with the community. The RfA succeeded 103/13/1. So it's not impossible for candidates with very little content experience to succeed, but only if they have demonstrated all the admin skills beyond reasonable doubt. Hope this helps - Pointillist (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
So you would rather not have an admin who is an expert on copyright laws but doesn't create content, because you believe that person would not be sufficiently empathetic to people who create copyvio-filled content. I don't share that POV, but I can understand it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing copyvio cleanup is most certainly not a good example. Someone who racks up several thousand edits cleaning up copyvios does have a content creation track record. Copyvio cleanup necessarily includes rewriting, which is why the backlog at WP:CCI is now growing to 5-6 years. Merely flagging stuff with the copyvio template doesn't count as cleanup, just identification. Not that identification isn't critical, but someone who would only flag copyvios without ever rewriting a single sentence would not get my !vote, as I would be hard pressed to see any practical experience that would help guide another user towards proper paraphrasing. I should know, I got my bit in 2009 mostly on copyvio cleanup. MLauba(Talk)16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio can also be addressed through blanking. It's not necessary to create content (and certainly not to create GAs and FAs) to address copyright violations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't necessarily figure out how to excise and paraphrase on some CCIs and blanking did not seem like a good answer either. Some topics were obscure to me and I felt too uncomfortable trying to tackle them. After several fruitless attempts and lost time, I moved away from it in lieu of going where I might be more effective. Admittedly, the long backlog there gave me the impression that it was a lost cause. Hat's off to those who work in that arena. Correct me if I'm wrong but the admin tools aren't necessary to participate in CCIs. — Berean Hunter(talk)14:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that not all copyvios are best addressed through blanking, but I know you also agree that a WP:VOLUNTEER can't be forced to do what s/he feels uncomfortable doing, so it's still possible for someone to contribute significantly without creating content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, I do not support any suggestion that admins should have GA/FA creation experience. On the contrary, as Kraftlos recorded me saying five years ago [45][46]"I'm not expecting candidates to have moved mountains—I just want to see some substantial edits, some real references and some collaborative discussions on article talk pages that result in article improvement... My logic is like this:
The purpose of this project is to build encyclopedic content.
Admins have wide powers that affect content and the editors who contribute it.
Therefore being an admin requires a reasonable minimum level of content competence.
Therefore admin candidates/nominators should demonstrate this competence."
I'm open to counter-arguments and I proactively offered Trappist the monk's RfA and DeltaQuad's first RfA to support your line of thinking. But I think you're wasting your efforts. Notwithstanding a few special cases like those, in general principles like mine will survive, because they summarize the feelings of most contributors and are simple enough for journalists to present in brief. If the opposite point of view is that the WMF finds it inconvenient to have so few admins then we get into a potentially divisive debate about who runs the 'pedia and how the foundation has accumulated far more cash than it need to run the servers and is now run by someone who has never made an edit. Is that where you want to go? - Pointillist (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have skipped the step, "The only possible way to acquire 'content competence' is to create, source, and discuss long-form, text-based content. No other form of contributing to the project is an acceptable substitute".
By the way, I'm here in my capacity as a WP:VOLUNTEER who has made about seven times as many edits as you. Whether or not some part of the WMF cares about RFA has nothing to do with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi WhatamI, that step sounds like a quote, is it from one individuals guide to RFA? I can think of at least one RFA where the candidate got through largely on the strength of their participation in the cleanup of unreferenced BLPs - prodding the non notable and referencing the notable ones. I don't recall if they had much experience of creating content as opposed to sourcing stuff that others had written, and as that was some years ago I wouldn't care to predict whether or not someone could squeak through RFA now on that basis. I'm one of those who considers that our admins need an understanding of our sourcing policy, and I don't know of an alternative way to demonstrate that other than by sourcing content and telling others how to source content. So to get back to your copyvio specialist; If we had a candidate who specialised in dealing with copyvio, and could show several good examples of them guiding people who had contributed copyvio to put things in their own words and cite their facts from reliable sources, then it would be interesting to see if they could get through RFA, I might even support them myself. But I wouldn't nominate them without some record of creating cited content, if only because I don't think we should encourage people to run until we think they are ready and likely to pass without serious dissent. But do you now understand why several of us have indicated that we don't regard excellence at spotting and removing copyvio as sufficient qualification for adminship, unless accompanied by the other skills that such an admin would need? ϢereSpielChequers10:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It is not a quotation of anyone else's work. It is an unstated condition for his requirements to make logical sense.
As I said above, I understand where this "requirement" comes from; however, I don't agree with it. It's not actually a very complicated idea: Its proponents believe that if you are not a content creator, then you cannot possibly understand the perspective of the content creator. Furthermore, they believe that because you have not lived through that group's experience, and since you therefore can't understand their POV, then you'll never be able to deal with them in a manner that they find acceptable. If you substitute "woman", "gay person", "racially disadvantaged person", etc., for "content creator", then you will probably recognize a rather tired political argument (also one used to claim that therapists must 'match' their clients, that trans-racial adoptions must be banned, etc.).
Also as I said above, I'd be sad if the admin corps overall could not boast many content creators, but I'm more interested in a "balanced library" than a "balanced book": I want all the skills and all the experiences in the admin corps, not an admin corps that is 100% from the "content creator" subset. It's okay if you disagree with me; if you want an admin corps that is built solely of content creators, then I respect your right to hold that opinion. I hope that you will similarly respect my right to reject that opinion about what's best for a large and diverse project with hundreds of ways to contribute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not one of those who insists that all admins be content creators, I suspect many content creators wouldn't count me as one myself. My minimum criteria for adminship includes the much lower test of a demonstrated understanding of our sourcing policy, and in that respect the consensus in the RFA !voting community is with me. Those who want all admins to be "content creators" with at least a GA under their belt are a small minority at RFA, insufficient to derail the RFA of an otherwise qualified candidate, arguments from that corner do tend to include things like "unless you have a GA etc you can't understand the perspectives of the serious contributors", and only someone with audited content contributions should have the power to block an FA writer. But such arguments do not prevail at RFA, "content contributors" who also meet the other requirements for adminship often get 100% support, candidates with a similar level of qualification to myself can pass but not unanimously.
As for your race and gender analogy, the difference here is between a skill and an attribute. A good comparison would be with a local sailing or photography club, membership one would hope would be open to all, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation - just as adminship is on Wikipedia. But it would be odd if a sailing club had someone who didn't know how to sail resolving disputes in sailing contests, or a photography club committee had a member who had never used a camera. Of course there are many ways in which people can be contributors to this project, but simply being a contributor in good standing is in itself insufficient for adminship, there are other criteria, including some I agree with as well as some I consider excessive. But all the criteria are open to anyone to acquire, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. ϢereSpielChequers10:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as a relatively new, semi-casual editor on the sidelines, I'd say I'd consider doing an RfA on the sole basis of helping out with some of the backlogs and other admin-related gruntwork that needs to be done behind the scenes because I just like doing that sort of thing, but I'm similarly deterred by the heavy emphasis placed on frontend content creation and avoiding squabblesome areas out of the way of mainspace... I'm not the greatest at doing more than gnomey edits and I'm not knowledgeable in topic areas that merit new articles, nor do I know enough to improve existing articles to GA or FA-- not to mention I only joined a few months ago, WP:NOTNOW or whatever, so in general there's a whole host of reasons I'd be turned down on the spot. But I just find myself void of things to do and dare I say it bored, after a couple edits and talkpage posts here and there in the articles I feel comfortable editing, which is frustrating when I know there are so many other parts of the 'pedia back-end that could use mopmeisters who are fine working backstage, but the process is so dramatic and unnecessarily latched onto things that don't determine administrative aptitude of an editor that it's not worth the trouble.
I'm pretty sure that this doesn't necessarily mean WP is "falling apart" per se, but it'll likely continue shambling along in a lumpy, broken mess unless a few things are tweaked. BlusterBlasterkablooie!19:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I think BlusterBlaster put it perfectly. I would enjoy doing behind the scenes admin work, stuff like AIV requests and move requests that need admin closure to complete. I would like to call myself good at communicating with editors and the like... Sure I may not make the most articles, and I may not have been here very long, but I think my editing history shows I have good judgement and a solid knowledge of Wikipedia policies. But if I took that to an RfA, I would get a speedy not now closure with probably less than 10% support.
Speaking as an editor who's been here a reasonably long time (I've even come up at ANI a couple of times!)...I tend to come here to do gnomeish edits as a way of helping out without getting overly-involved (for instance, I tend to avoid WP on evenings and weekends). I'd consider throwing my hat in the ring at RfA (and my User page has indicated such for quite awhile now), but it seems like I'd be inviting a huge spotlight onto myself for, at best, the chance to help out in somewhat more meaningful ways, and at worst, the chance to attract all kinds of attention that I'm happy not to have in the course of my regular Wikipedia editing. It's a shame that editors who want to help, but generally only in a fairly-limited capacity, can't be given precisely the tools they need to do those jobs; perhaps that would diminish the drama somewhat. Anyway, these comments are worth pretty much exactly the amount you paid to read them. DonIago (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused on the question of how far we're falling behind in admin chores. Are some apparent backlogs not really backlogs? I don't know the best way to get at this; some kind of RfC where people could discuss problems and solutions might help, unless there's another way to get the information that isn't coming to me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
What is actually badly needed, recommended, but does not seem to be ever attempted is a real analysis of backlogs with the conclusion on where we are standing now. What I see already for a long time are just random statements of the type "look, we have an AIV 24h backlog, it is horrible - No, we have a CFD backlog of 3 month, it is the end of the world". From my experience, 24h AIV backlog is indeed horrible and means vandals are effectively not being stopped at the moment, whereas 3 months CfD backlog is certainly not the end of the world - there are too few policies about categories, most discussions inevitably turn subjective, and often opinions bale to shift the consensus are still coming after two months of discussion. I am not sure how and who can perform this analysis for different types of backlogs, but I would find it difficult to discuss unbundling without these data.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, and I'd also like to know why we promote fewer admins every year. Is it okay with everyone if I spend some time surveying recent graduates of RfA, asking them what factors caused them to wait as long as they did? I'm asking because I don't want to compromise my neutrality, and miss a chance to keep helping as a closer. I wont suggest any answers, I'll just record and present the data. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
push to talk, I see no problem with doing that, but I suspect that will be like asking people who just subscribed to a newspaper why there are fewer newspaper subscriptions every year. How about asking those who failed and those who refuse to run such as myself? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
(Btw, Guy, I didn't get pinged by that, you probably have to put "Dank" after the pipe character to ping.) I apologize, I've changed my mind, there's a risk of losing my job as closer if I do anything at all. I'm ready to help, but only in the end-stages of a relevant RfC. I can repeat here what I said at WT:RFA, though: if we do get 12 first-time admins this year, I don't imagine anyone would count on more than 3 or 4 of those, max, to be highly active after a few years. We've been losing more than 80 admins per year the past few years. There's no reason to believe that nothing can be done about this ... there are plenty of people who would like to help out in some way but don't see a role where they fit in. There are hard judgment calls to make, of course, and this is a hard subject to tackle. But the consequences of never tackling it are pretty obvious; the current trends aren't sustainable. It's hard to get everyone on board even with proposals that would make a small difference ... but hard isn't the same as impossible. Thus endeth the sermon. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Correction: According to the figures at #Some limited data below, the number of active admins hasn't dropped over the last year. I should have mentioned that I only had figures through last November. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
To clarify: this new data suggests that, over the past 12 months, the number of admins becoming inactive or leaving equalled the number returning from a period of inactivity. It's not likely that attrition has suddenly disappeared. Before the next RfC, we really need to know whether the recently active admins came back just to edit, or whether they're having an impact on whatever backlogs we've got, or something in between. If everyone votes assuming one answer and we find out halfway through that what everyone was assuming was wrong ... ugh. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Just find something you care about, be it an article or a particular administrative task, and pour your heart into it. That way all at once you'll enjoy yourself, you'll make a difference, and you'll be making an impact such that what seemed so insurmountable will quickly prove not to be so. A few years ago I took aim at the unreferenced BLPs, and the number at the time went from 450 to 150, all BLPPRODded, in a month and change. Obviously it didn't stay that way, and it also didn't change the fact that I had a good time resolving a serious problem with 350+ articles. Don't get all freaked out if other backlogs that you aren't working on build up, just focus on yourself; if you find you want to work on one of those then go for it, and don't ever force yourself to do something you really don't have your heart set on. There's always someone to do even those things everyone thinks no one wants to do—I don't know how many people have told me I'm crazy for my interest in sorting out the absolute worst of the ethnic conflicts—and there's no sense torturing yourself on the basis that you owe something to a volunteer effort. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I'd love to help fix some backlogs; but running the gauntlet of RfA is not apppealing. Like Sitush, I spend a lot of time working on controversial topics, which guarantees loud opposition at RfA, which tends to select for candidates who've rarely annoyed any other editors and, thus, by definition, it favours admin-candidates who have had less involvement in trying to fix en.wikipedia's most pressing problems.That's the system we've chosen. bobrayner (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
RfA is really no longer as bad as it was when it was suggested in 2011 by Jimbo Wales that that it is (or was) 'a horrible and broken process' . Unfortunately there are plenty of newcomers to Wikipedia since that time who don't understand the damage they are doing with their trollish and/or disingenuos votes and IP (mostly block evasion) users. An in-depth study of RfA found that the problem is with the attitude of the voters rather than with the process itself. It was found that the vast majority of RfA participants are one-off voters and the rest of the pool of fairly regular voters is in fact, over time, quite transient. Those who were or had been voting at the time of the study who are still voting regularly are extremely few and sadly among thm are some who still refuse to allow the process to become less of an ordeal.
The voters who vote consistently but far from every RfA and who display intelligence in their voting should be encouraged to vote on every RfA - some of the people commenting in this discussion don't even do that so how do they expect serious change to take place?
That said, the bar is neither too high nor too low - it's simply set anew for each RfA depending on who turns out to vote. RfA generally does what it says on the tin and editors who have read the advice pages before they run will be clearly aware whether or not they are going to be wasting the community's time, and of course their own, and whether the experience is going to be a week of hell or a walk in the park. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the fact that many of the current processes seem ridiculously inefficient is a factor, at least as much as the alleged gauntlet of RfA? Given the thankless admin workload, the contemptuous label 'mop' might almost have been designed to make diligent editors think twice about becoming candidates. Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better. From this point of view a really precipitous "downward spiral" (@Jeppiz's term) in the number of active admins could just what we need to cull (or automate) the most time-consuming sacred cows and raise the status of adminship. - Pointillist (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Interesting discussion. I don't have much to add, except that I remember a similar recent discussion (I think it was at the Village Pump, though darn if I can't find it...) in which the subject of creating a "bot" to automate the process of helping the current Admins search for suitable Admin candidates was brought up. That I think is an idea that might be worth pursuing. At the very least, it might be good if someone would take on the task of fixing (and updating?) Snottywong's Admin score tool as that, at least, might be something that could help people interested in being prospective Admins if they are even likely to qualify at an RfA or not. --IJBall (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Snottywong's tool, while interesting, is really not very useful. The things it checks for are very minimal, and give perhaps 10 pieces of a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle. Look at User:Elen of the Roads, former arbitrator. Her score? 238. User:Hersfold, another former arbitrator; 235. Former arbitrator User:Jclemens, 265. Former arbitrator User:Shell Kinney, who hasn't edited in 4 years...275. According to the tool, "Scores over 500 are generally regarded as good". It appears the tool looks at just 4 things; whether or not a person has a user page (why does that matter towards being a good admin?), whether or not they have other user rights, whether or not they've been blocked (and how many times), and edit count. You get full points for edit count if you have at least 25k edits, yet we have 325 administrators with fewer than 25000 edits. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, agreed – my point wasn't just to take Snottywong's old tool and use it as is (I think it's partially broken right now anyway, as I think some of the inputs it used to look for are gone...), but to take his old tool and improve it. And I don't view that as a "magic bullet" – but something (anything) that might be able to quantify how current editors might fare in at least some aspects of what comes up in an RfA would be all to the good. Because, right now, we've seen a bunch of comments in this thread from editors saying "Well I would help, but I'd never make it through an RfA..." which might not be as true as they think – if we could somehow "quantify" their Admin RfA potential, it might convince a few more people to give it a shot. (I've had separate thoughts on this issue, that I may share later, but it ultimately comes down to the Admins themselves deciding that there's a problem and then organizing a 'working group' to reach out to prospective candidates, and possibly also to reaching out to relatively inactive or semi-retired Admins to try to restoke their interest as well...) --IJBall (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm all for more data, but this kind of thing has a "you get what you measure" self-fulfilling prophecy effect. This tool apparently gives full points for 25k (!!) edits - not sure what data the score was based on, but in my recent re-RfA a few people suggested a minimum standard of 10k. Empirically, that seems reasonable - I didn't look closely but I couldn't find another recent successful candidate under that number at the time of their RfA. On an individual level, nothing wrong with sticking with what works. And yet, on a collective basis, standards-ratcheting is really bad for the health of the overall process.
Many capable candidates are now getting to RfA much later in their "wiki-careers" than they used to, despite being obviously qualified well beforehand. This pattern:
deprives the community of months to years of admin activity by capable people;
deprives the community of any admin activity by capable people who aren't realistically going to keep ahead of standards inflation*;
selects for people with significant continuous volunteer availability, possibly perpetuating systemic bias and reducing the diversity of the admin corps;
results in a lack of admins with any semi-recent knowledge of the new user experience; and
communicates to new users that adminship is an inaccessible and bureaucratic Big Deal rather than just a way some trusted members of the community volunteer their time.
I've seen a few comments that the environment has improved since the bad old days, and I wasn't around to see the worst of it, but it does seem like you'll perceive an improved environment if the borderline cases don't run, leaving mostly clear passes and confused newbies. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
*This was a joke, but there's a point there: 10k edits at my pace would take around the same wall-clock time as getting a commercial pilot's license.
So basically, getting 25,000 edits, or a full 125-something-point edit score, would take as much time as the time required to get 2.5 commercial pilot's licenses? Epic Genius (talk) ±18:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
On a serious note, it does look like RfA needs reform. We really do not need admins who were nominated mainly because their content work was good or because they never edited controversially. What we do need are admins who can make the right choices in blocking and page protection, and admins who, hopefully, can clear the administrator backlogs that are getting bigger each year. Adminship should not be viewed as a "super-user" status, but as a status in which dirtier tasks (such as page deletions, protections, and blocks) could be done without the backlog expanding to unmanageable proportions. Epic Genius (talk) ±18:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi EpicGenius, In that respect RFA actually currently works the way you want it to. I'm one of those who would happily support a qualified candidate who had never done anything as contentious as suggest another user be blocked, given an opinion on a page deletion or a page protection, but such an RFA would fail on the basis of "no need for the tools". I can think of various things we could usefully ask such a new admin to do, but my advice to anyone considering standing is to make sure in your answer to question one you include one or two tools you are ready to use and can be judged based on your edits in that area. Something along the lines of "based on my experience at AIV/AFD/RFPP I think I am ready to use the admin tools to block/delete/protect". Sadly there are also some arbitrary and in my view inflated criteria on edit count and tenure that limit our recruitment of new admins; but doing the right thing in controversial situations is one of the qualifications for adminship. ϢereSpielChequers10:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the history of Wikipedia:List of administrators, we can track the number of active administrators over time. This is not the number of administrators, but the actual number of administrators who are active. "Active" is defined as 30 or more edits during the prior two months. Data points of note:
26 May 2015: Today, we have 602 active administrators.
26 May 2014: A year ago, it was 600.
26 May 2013: 683
28 May 2012: 707 (data missing for 26 May)
26 May 2011: 759
26 May 2010: 847
26 May 2009: 921
26 May 2008: 981
There's obviously been a decline, but it is interesting to note that we appear to have reached an equilibrium for the time being. There's been no net decline over the last 13 months (22 April 2014 was the first time it dropped to 600). This doesn't say anything about backlogs of course, but it does show the pool of administrators still active on the project has remained static for the last 13 months. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
That's interesting data, but I'm starting to wonder if it doesn't paint the full picture. Because what I've noticed in my poking around the last month or two is how many of the "602" actually don't do much with their tools. I mean, in just that last little while, one high profile Admin (Swarm) has seemingly thrown in the towel (but would still show up as "active" as this happened recently...) while several others have had dust-ups at places like ANI which has apparently significantly diminished their enthusiasm and caused them to become much less active. And then there is the cadre of Admins who have had the bit for ages, but whose names I don't recognize and who seemingly don't use their tools much anymore... What would be really useful data is not the total number of "active" Admins according to the List of Admins (that definition of "active" is far too loose to be useful), but the number of truly active Admins – i.e. that number that have used their actual Admin tools 'X' number of times in the last 30 days, or whatever. I did check that recently, and most the usual names came up, but I didn't actually do a "count" to figure out how many of the "602" are really using their Admin tools actively... In any case, that is the data that would be truly useful to figuring out if there's a real problem right now or not. --IJBall (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, running that tool for April 26 through today (removing bots) I find (defining 'active' as performing at least one admin action in the 30 days surveyed):
475 active admins.
The top ten most active of those are responsible for 41.8% of the administrator actions (67,665 actions)
The top 50 are responsible for 77.2%.
If you include bots in totals (103,438 actions) and percent of totals, bots do 34% of the admin actions.
Number of actions per active admin (burden): 142
For the same time period in 2014:
490 active admins.
The top ten most active of those are responsible for 37.1% of the administrator actions (63,302 actions)
The top 50 are responsible for 75.6%.
If you include bots in totals (76,261 actions) and percent of totals, bots do 16.9% of the admin actions.
Number of actions per active admin (burden): 129
For the same time period in 2010:
700 active admins.
The top ten most active of those are responsible for 38.3% of the administrator actions (93,853 actions)
The top 50 are responsible for 69.8%.
If you include bots in totals (101,537 actions) and percent of totals, bots do 7.6% of the admin actions.
Number of actions per active admin (burden): 134
Certainly the quantity of bot admin actions has increased dramatically over the years. Of note; the actual burden figure per admin has remained more or less static. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for putting together these numbers. I'm not sure how to compare these, given the rise of the admin bot. Do the actions per admin include bot actions? How many of those older actions could have been done by a bot? If the number of admin actions taken (NB not "needed", which is impossible to measure) is more or less stable, are these actions now harder/slower/more complicated cases (because the bots did all the easy ones)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Minor point, here, but I think you and I may have different definitions of "active" in terms of Admin tools. While 476 Admins (including bots) used their tools at least once between 27 April and 27 May 2015, only 269 of those Admins used their tools 10 times or more in that month, and only 210 Admins used their tools 20 times or more. I was thinking more along the lines of a standard like that for "truly active", and I think that's the standard I'd use for comparing Admin "activity" over the years... --IJBall (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Distribution of the fraction of total admins taking a given number of actions in one year.Distribution of the fraction of total admin actions taken by each admin in one year.
Here's some more limited data. I had a few minutes so I made some quick-and-dirty graphs of the statistics from the adminstats tool, comparing May 2014-May 2015 (blue) to May 2006-May 2007 (green). Result: the percent of admins taking at least 1 and fewer than 10 actions per year has greatly increased, but the percent taking over 100 actions has decreased. (Note this is admin actions, so that first category isn't necessarily just people making their obligatory one edit to avoid desysopping.) Of course, with fewer contributors, there's arguably less to do - and some formerly manual actions are being taken by adminbots - but the trend is clear enough. On the log graph you get a clearer sense that shares of the overall administrative burden used to be much more broadly distributed. We've concentrated admin actions in a smaller number of hands. This reduces diversity in administrative decision-making, increases the likelihood of burnout among the highly active admins, and makes the community vulnerable to backlogs and interruptions when those people do decide to reduce their activity levels.
There's plenty of discussion at the village pump about possible desysoppings as a solution to what appears to be a non-problem outside an isolated instance. Meanwhile the actual ongoing problem - concentration of the total administrative burden on a narrower base of editors - keeps going on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
In 2006, there were admins running adminbots on their own accounts without bot flags. Technically this was a violation of the rules, but it was something of an open secret that we had both blocking and deletion bots operating. Dragons flight (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure getting more Admins (to broaden that base using Admin tools) is something that can be solved until Admins get more proactive about. As I said above (I think... or somewhere, recently...), I think if Admins really want to increase the RfA rate, you're going to have to organize a working group on your end to figure out which longer-term or higher-yield editors you want to try to coax into running and then reach out to them. (Right now, I get the impression that this process is really ad hoc, and not "planned" or "organized" to any great degree.) P.S. Thanks for the figures (esp. the first one – that is interesting data that I was not expecting...). --IJBall (talk) 06:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The figures are quite, um, interesting. Does anyone find it weird that the most active admin, who has six times as many admin actions this past month as the next admin, is a bot that blocks proxies? We've got to find a way to automate many admin processes. The top 10 admins have performed 59,000 admin actions in the past 30 days, with over half of them by that proxy bot which apparently runs on magic, but there's got to be a way that we can get more admins into Wikipedia today, even with fewer and fewer editors actively editing Wikipedia. The solution, I think, could be by having bots clear some backlogs, manually assisted of course, but the X for deletion process could probably be good places to start. Epic Genius (talk) ±18:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Dragons flight makes a good point about the challenge of comparing current and past adminbot actions - though a lot of people would have had to do some occasional unauthorized botting in order to explain the size of the discrepancy, and the effect should be balanced by the fact that there are now ubiquitous scripts to speed up bread-and-butter non-bot admin actions that don't require technical knowledge to use.
The suggestion of increased automation raises a good point. If the problem is backlogs, do we concentrate on trying to recruit more active admins to clear them, or refocus on increasing the productivity of the existing set? My argument way above is, more or less, that there are underappreciated social costs to low RfA throughput independent of the state of the backlogs. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I still find it remarkable that that out of, what, 1300 "active" admins, that top 50 admins do 3/4 of the heavy lifting. No wonder there is a problem with burnout, especially if the admin actions aren't noncontroversial and routine but involve difficult blocks or AfDs/deletions.
Unless it is just proxy blocking, I've found it unnerving to consider how many admin acts are conducted by bots. What other actions do they take, do they block editors or delete articles? Because those acts should have a human being okaying them unless a decision has been made by an admin and it's just a technicality that the bot did the actual deed. LizRead!Talk!15:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
As I just mentioned at WP:VPI, whenever all of this turns into one or more RfCs, it will be perfectly okay but not necessary to repeat any or all of this in those RfCs, we'll be reading everything relevant and taking it all into account. Just a reminder ... the goal of the RfCs will be to address everyone's concerns, not to decide who wins and who loses. To do that, we'll need to know what the concerns are, so guys, when possible, don't just tell us what solutions you favor, tell us what problem you're trying to solve ... even if it's just a possible problem, even if you're not sure. Of course ... even better is data that supports a claim, or an argument or position that's acceptable to a wide range of voters - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
What is the intention with one or more RfCs? If it's not focused, it's just going to turn into a complaints forum. I do agree that problems need to be identified. Soooo many times I see people come up with "solutions" that fail to address any specific problem, but they're damn sure it will make things better because...well, because! You can't solve a problem if you don't know what it is. You might be able to contain it, but not solve it. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Are votes a good idea? In some ways, but there's always a cost ... more time spent on unproductive stuff, more people who get the sense that they're not being heard or that the system doesn't work. Are votes inevitable? Yes. Are they necessary? Probably, from a closer's point of view, because consensus has clearly changed over the last year, but it wouldn't be wise or fair to make a call on how it's changed until everyone gets their say. - Dank (push to talk) 15:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Related to my above comment, almost anything purporting to solve everything ends up ringing as true as Da Tongshu. While acknowledging it may be the autism and resulting severely impaired gestalt perception talking, my suggestion for improvement would be to find small things to work on. Fixating on your personal vision of the admin system as a whole isn't going to get anywhere, since everyone has their own ideas and there's no possible way they can all be reconciled in one large discussion. All the energy you save can then be put into working on something you care about, and everyone will be more satisfied for it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
If they are significantly affecting content, problems need to be addressed. If they are for the most point internal, they need not. Really, that is the only test in my mind. Few if any of the tourists who visit Notre Dame care about internal discussions about wages and conditions in 1322 (or whenever), what is important is ... there.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, among all these discussions, the one recurring theme is that "backlogs are real". They don't happen all the time, but they definitely do happen. And, really, we need AIV and RFPP, at least, to have as minimal backlogs as possible. On my end, I sometimes wonder if the backlog issue actually relates to an uneven distribution of en Wiki Admins across time zones – has anyone even gathered any data on how many (active) Admins we have operating by time zone?! Not having enough Admins in certain timezones might be one factor as to why backlogs on the Noticeboards accumulate at certain times of the day. --IJBall (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Maybe a database report can be compiled, which finds out the time zone preferences that each admin uses. Epic Genius (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't mind me but I'm just looking at recent RFAs and noticing people are opposing for some very (IMO) petty and irrelevant reasons. The general school of thought seems to be that content creation matters most and all your semi-automated edits mean nothing, using Twinkle too much can even be a reason to oppose !vote alone which is ridiculous. Content creators aren't right for admin work, they're builders and proud of that but admins have always been maintenance workers and you don't need to know how to build a house in order to keep it clean. The whole "mop" thing? You don't build things with mops, you maintain. The job of being an admin has nothing to do with how you might !vote in an XfD or how much you've written, we shouldn't even want content creators because their strengths are better spent creating given how there's evidence that eventually they won't use those tools because they have nothing to do with building the encyclopedia as goes the prime directive for some. If you mostly spend your time in Wikipedia space then you should be seen as doing work that needs doing as an admin but we still seem to be stuck in the 2007 mindset that content creation matters in any way, editcounts matter and the more of them that are manual and in articlespace the better, none of which will matter whatsoever for an admin doing requested moves, clerking at RFPP or closing RFCs. That was then when we didn't have as much content and needed to grow so we elevated the ones making stuff to the top, that made sense then but eight years down the line and the site has matured to a state where we need admins who can clear backlogs and the lousy rote work far more than the sort of editor the old guard wanted, basically themselves. tutterMouse (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I've long thought that it is important to completely unlink content creation from administration. The one and only admin power useful to content creators is the ability to impose redirects through the software when they are automatically prevented — I run to an admin a few times a year for that. It's minor. Similarly, the people who need tools for vandal fighting or new article queue maintenance don't necessarily need to be able to research and write. I personally think the answer is creating some sort of community-vetted status for advanced editing, which includes auto-confirmation of new starts and ability to redirect over the software — then people could strut their featured article stuff or whatever for validation there, if they are needy for that, and the RFA process could be more narrowly focused on the deletion and blocking tools and who is capable of handling them appropriately without any nonsense about content creation coming into the equation. My two cents. Carrite (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@Carrite: The primary reason content creation and becoming an admin became linked was not because content creators had greater need of the admin bit, but because there was a somewhat widespread feeling that admins were treating established content editors with insufficient empathy. So an admin who only did/does gnomish stuff, may have less empathy for the impact of deleting someone's hard work on an article at AfD than an admin who themselves had put lots of hard work into building articles, and had faced the prospect of them being deleted themselves. Monty84515:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@Carrite, back in 2010 there was a proposal to have a new non-admin user right that could perform one-hour blocks, but only of IP addresses and unconfirmed users and purely for vandalism. More controversial blocks—of confirmed users or for longer periods, for gross incivility, edit warring etc—would still require an admin. The idea was to take content creation out of the equation for the most urgent vandal prevention tasks. What would you think of that approach now? - Pointillist (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, unbundling a tool to delete redirects with non-empty history is a good idea and may have a chance. Has it ever been discussed? As far as I am concerned it might be even given as a tool to an existing group, for instance rollbackers.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
It would probably be better as a separate "right" ("Article movers"?...) – this doesn't seem to fit in well with either the existing "Rollback" or "Pending reviewer" rights. Just my $0.02. --IJBall (talk) 23:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
This is also fine with me, but I agree that keeping this only available to administrators is not a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Just an idea that came to me as I was browsing this thread, & I'm throwing out only because it seems no one has proposed it: why not require anyone who want to be an Admin to participate at RfA? Yes, it runs the risk of making Adminship a closed group accessible only by being co-opted in. However, it could effect some moderation in the discussions by diluting the usual voices who simply oppose candidates for bad reasons, from grudges against specific persons to trivial objections to tall poppy syndrome -- which seem to be why the environment there is so toxic. -- llywrch (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
A lot of RFA candidates do participate in a few RFAs before running their own, and I'd recommend that anyone considering a run starts voting there. But I'm uncomfortable adding another arbitrary hurdle to the process, I'm pretty sure we have recent admins whose only RFA involvement was their own run and I wouldn't want to make things more difficult for people like them. ϢereSpielChequers08:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The "toxicity" extends across much of Wikimedia, from the biggest projects (eg this one) to the smallest ones (eg Wikispecies). It is an inherited trait from the earliest days of Wikipedia and is unlikely to change soon. If you participated in the recent Board elections, you may have noticed that they have a very different format, essentially getting you to click radio buttons expressing either support, neutral or oppose without being able to see anyone else's !vote. I'm not going to make allegations but I think the board are aware of potential comments that might be made by the more "politically active" users. I very much doubt such a system would be accepted here though. Green Giant (talk)18:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Some RfAs are indeed toxic without benefit in any respect, but many of the RfAs that have aroused strong opposition--leading often to rejection or withdrawal--have been those where real problems have been identified. for most candidate popular enough to be nominated for Admin, there will be a rush of I LIKE THEM comments at the start, and in fact RfA is the only enWP venue where such an argument is in considered acceptable. (though it is usually more discreetly worded as Trust rather Like). Any admin planning to be active in anything but trivial matters is going to run into people who are strongly hostile to them, and the ability to deal with them politely without getting upset is a necessary condition. Similarly, the true basis of the requirement to have some experience with writing articles is that unless you have yourself have had the experience of submitting articles and seeing them run into objections, you will not have the understanding to deal properly with new editors in the same situation. The need of WP to continually attract new editors is much greater than the need for more administrators--enough good new editors, and the admin problem will solve itself. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
The board elections are very different to an RFA, far more people take part and there are multiple candidates going for a limited number of places. The radio button feature means you can oppose without giving a reason, personally I think that makes the process more snarky - you might be opposing simply as a tactical matter, if your sole reason for participating is to support one candidate then your most effective vote is to support them and oppose all others. By contrast the Oppose section at an RFA does require you to give a reason for your oppose, if the reason is that you have unusual standards for RFA, including older incidents than most RFA voters would consider then your oppose will usually have little impact. If however you present a diff supported case as to why that candidate is not ready for the mop then your oppose might well be the one that swings an RFA - though there are over a hundred participants in most recent RFAs I suspect that only a small minority seriously check the candidates contributions. ϢereSpielChequers08:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
When used in obvious/no-brainer cases, many "admin" tasks require little or no thought. However, the tools are wisely are not availalbe to most editors because they can be abused.
A lot of these simpler tasks can be offloaded to experienced, trusted non-admins through the use of proxy admin-bots.
For example, experienced vandal fighters and other editors in good standing could be added to an authorized-to-use-the-bot list that allowed them to call on a speedy-deletion admin-bot which, under certain conditions, such as "1) newly created page by a relatively new editor, 2) at least 1 hour has passed since the initial request by an authorized editor with no edits since or (except for the article's creation) no edits in the last 5 minutes, and 3) at least 2 authorized editors have requested speedy deletion," would delete the page.
Another example would be an "AfD close bot" for clearly-non-controversial DELETE-closes. Such a bot would delete only if, say, 3 people on the bot's user list who did not participate in the discussion said "yes, delete this," none said "no, don't," AND there were no more than, say, 1 "keep" !votes and at least, say, 5 "delete" !votes. Note - due to to longstanding En-wiki tradition and/or long-ago declarations from ArbCom and/or the Foundation, access to this bot would likely have to go through a community-approval process similar to RfA. However, community approval for an editor to be added to the "AfD-bot use" list is much more likely than approval for full adminiship.
These are just an examples of the kinds of things editors with experience in a given area and who are in good standing can do through an admin-bot acting as their proxy, without having to know everything they need to know to be a good admin. Bots such as these will free up admins to do things that require the broad experience, good overall judgement in all areas (not just in one specialty), and other factors that make a good admin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Most editors that would be trusted enough by the community to hold one or more admin tool, even by "proxy admin bot", would be close to or even beyond the threshold for adminship, as the tools can be easily misused in moderately-experienced editor's hands; so this would just add one more unnecessary layer to RfX. Esquivaliencet01:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
We have a problem with over hasty deletion, many RFAs have been derailed because it emerged that the candidate had been heavy handed at speedy deletion tagging. I would agree that automation could reduce our admin shortages, but aside from certain types of U1s and G7s I'm not convinced that deletion is an area where we could or should lower our guard. An edit filter that warned people before they breached 3RR would be brilliant though and would make the pedia less bitey whilst reducing our need for admins. Also Admin bots would be useful to identify over looked candidates for Autopatroller and possibly Rollbacker. If someone is willing to write such a bot to find I would be delighted to use it. ϢereSpielChequers13:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Agreed habibisgreat is not so great and needs to be habibisblocked and his RfA deleted. I've left a note at the Bureaucrats Noticeboard. BMK (talk) 05:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Currently, there are RfCs waiting for closers that were posted 48, 50, 53, 54, 56, 59, 59, 64, 65, 66, 69, 76, 77, 79, and 81 days ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Guy Macon, who usually signs with "Guy Macon", is not an admin, but User:JzG, who signs himself "Guy" is. BMK (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Especially the one I posted... (smile) Seriously, though, some of these really do need an experienced admin to evaluate the consensus and make a ruling. In many cases that alternative is same editors who cannot agree on the article talk page now being unable to agree about the outcome of the RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Currently, there are RfCs waiting for closers that were posted 85, 83, 73, 68, 60, 58, 57, 54, 52, 52, 50, 49, and 45 days ago. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Situation seems to have improved in the last 24 hours or so – I've gone through and marked a number of these as "done=yes", etc. as Admin Guy closed a number of these on June 10. And one of the one's that's left doesn't seem to be a valid RfC in any case. ----IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Same applies as last time: anything old, with few participants, on a matter of no importance, can be non-admin closed as stale. I have no idea why some are even listed, they are not templated RfCs. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The #On the brink of collapse thread and others above suggest that there will be an RfC at some point. There's some discussion about that at WT:RFA. So far, Dave and I have offered to close. Anyone want to put their hand up? I'm asking because some of the tougher RfCs of the last 3 years have taken months to close, while closers tried to read and respond to everything and coordinate their schedules; I'd rather we be caught up on our reading and ready to go by the time the RfC is winding down. - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I just got an email suggesting that we really need to get the perspectives of people who don't consider themselves RfA regulars ... yes, I completely agree, outside views are very welcome, and would provide some balance. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Depending on the time frame these closes are needed and assuming a non-admin would be welcome, I could jump in. I'm going to be largely able to be quite active here from the end of June until mid-to-late August other than a particular week in July (vacation away from computers). Then I crawl under a rock again for 10 months wrt Wikipedia (work is fun!). Hobit (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and for reasons of limited availability during the school year (among other reasons), I will not be asking for the bit anytime the the foreseeable future. Also, not sure if I count as a non-regular at RfA or not. Hobit (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was messing with that just a couple minutes ago. I think it's some vandal called Grawp. The vandal has already been blocked. Dustin(talk)18:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Multiple admins deployed mess cleaned up in under 10 minutes time submitted to Guiness book of records for speediest resolution of mass page move vandalism. Amortias (T)(C) 18:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I wish to bring to the attention of the Admins the page about Cyrus Pallonji Mistry. Mr Mistry is one of the top industrialists in India. He is currently heading the Tata group of companies in India. There is some dispute on his wiki page about his nationality. There is definitely a reference given in his wiki page to a Times of India article which says he is an Irish national. Never the less, considering that he is living and working in India, i think he should be described as an Indo-Irish businessman or an Irish-Indian businessman, and not as an Irish businessman. Characterizing him as an Irish businessmen would only provoke xenophobia among a section of Indians who read his wikipedia biography. Additionally, consider the fact that his father Pallonji Mistry is characterized as an Irish Indian in his wikipedia page. It is surely strange that the father is being characterized as Irish Indian in his wikipedia page while the son is being characterized as Irish in his wikipedia page. Anyways, i would like some kind of ruling on this issue since this is a matter that can come up again and again in the context of other wikipedia biographies of other immigrants. Soham321 (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As you may have noticed, Special:Search is currently broken; the WMF technical staff are working on it, but they've not yet completed the work. Following a WP:VPT thread, I've replaced the normal message of An error has occurred while searching: Search is currently too busy. Please try again later with a custom message, The search function is currently down. We are working to get it back as soon as possible. Once the problem is resolved, please go to MediaWiki:Search-error and revert me. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have blocked this user for refusing to communicate in English. We had a previous IP who had the same issue. Wondering what others thoughts are? Feel free to unblock if you think it was too harsh. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't figure out what this guy was trying to communicate either... it's not that it wasn't English, it's that it wasn't anything processable by humans, WTF... Zad6815:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I recall another user with the same writing style, I believe he claimed he had Carpral Tunnel Syndrome or something like that. I'm searching now to see if I can find that same person, it's a very distinct style of writing. KoshVorlonRassekali ternii i mlechnye puti15:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Tough situation. I've declined the IP's unblock request, which was also pretty well incomprehensible. If this is a situation where the user physically can't type, I'm very sympathetic, but I'm not sure that they're equipped to function here if they can't communicate in a comprehensible manner, no matter what the reason for that. To be able to collaborate, we need to be able to discuss, and right now we can't do that. We certainly owe any disabled user our best efforts to work with and accommodate them, but we cannot help with input on their end, and if their input is incomprehensible, everything down the line will also be. We have no way to deploy an accommodating mental filter that will enable Wikipedians to understand idiosyncratic shorthand. If we could, I think we happily would...but until then I don't think this is a workable situation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)FWIW, attempted translation of this diff: 1. Discriminating users who remove RS tags (?) 2. "Being silly/no English" but he gets it 3. Abusing admin rights for BULLYING and POV pushing 4. Meting out (?) in disproportionate measure 5. People talk WODEVALEC (?) to their talks... great project!. So it does appear to be some form of shorthand I have never encountered before, at least. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉16:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, Sven70, I remember him. @Salvidrim!: 1 would be "Discriminating against RSI users". I think 5. is "People talk With Out DEVALEC (this one bollixes me)..." Blackmane (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James: His comments to you were 1. Bold (presumably WP:BOLD in here = offense. 2.You underlink 3. It'd be once a paragraph. Userfriendliness 4. I don't need to show off, I am an MD / Dr, ta 5. I'd like to meet a smart Canadian, an oxymoron, alas. His subsequent reply is 1. Yes, you are a disabled hater 2.Learn grammar 3. Go live in your natural habitat, you dum(dim?)wit. and "We" are a bunch of hounding nazis (something like grammar nazis?), cheers Blackmane (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't disagree with the result of this by any means, but...I thought IP addresses couldn't be indeffed. Or is it a different circumstance when socking is involved? Erpertblah, blah, blah...04:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, everyone here hates the disabled, according to Sven70, and we are therefore disabled-hating scum. This is a long-term abuse troll. He often targets the most highly-watched pages to launch his inane accusations and attacks.[49],[50],[51] Right now he is 114.45.227.171 (talk·contribs), and someone should take the talk page privs away. @Erpert - The operator of Sven70 (et al) is indeffed, but we do not indef IP addresses, only named accounts. Some people believe we shouldn't even tag IP addresses, but I disagree and will continue to tag the IP talk pages of him and his ilk. Doctalk19:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
We generally don't indef IPs because the IP is likely to change hands eventually, and if dynamic, it could be quite quickly. Once it does change hands, anyone being blocked from editing is collateral damage. But from a technical standpoint, we do have the ability to indef IPs, and there are in fact about 83 that are currently blocked indefinitely, with a handful more blocked for 10+ years. Regulars at AIV will generally block for a max of 1-3 years when we see years of vandalism coming from an IP, just to limit the potential collateral damage, and to verify every 1-3 years it sill needs to be blocked when the vandalism kicks off again. See also WP:Blocking_IP_addresses#Indefinite_blocks. Monty84504:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Since the original site ban discussion nearly 5 years ago , Sven70 (talk·contribs) has used at least two dozen socks to disrupt the project. Instead of flying under the radar, he continues to respond with attacks and insults when confronted about his unacceptable "shorthand" style of communication.[52] It is time that he be formally banned, and a long-term abuse report is on its way. Many diffs of his malfeasance available upon request.
Support I remember this case from 2010, and I would have voted for a ban then, if I had noticed the ANI discussion at the time. It looks like nothing's changed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Support per WP:CIR. If there is a genuine disability issue here, speech-to-text software, while not perfect, is readily and cheaply available today, and would certainly be easier to understand than Sven's mode of typing. rdfox 76 (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
The RSI claim is actually dubious. While Sven70 has used cut-and-paste before to quote other editors before, edit I dug up long ago is clearly written by him without any assistance or bizarre "shorthand". earlier one, too . Before he was indeffed he repeatedly referred to a "handwritten" letter that he sent to the WMF. So some WMF members are aware of this case. Doctalk03:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: I have reverted a good-faith archiving of this section, on the grounds that we probably shouldn't be hiding away an active siteban discussion. Let's not get TOO aggressive in trimming the page down, folks! rdfox 76 (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
This section has been open for 7 days, with 14 "support" !votes and no "oppose" . Could we get an admin to close it and register a formal banning of Sven70? BMK (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
What's the rush? This is clearly a no-brainier of a close. Let's give it another week or so, perhaps a month even, just in case there's any remote question on what should happen here. Doctalk04:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've removed the "admin help" template- but a month is significantly longer than most discussions of this sort. BMK (talk) 06:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic agin. Time to close this one. Jimbo Wales has been harassed by this clown enough to close it himself. Doctalk06:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't recognize your intention. I was trying to be more cooperative and less confrontational. Let me add this then... BMK (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Happy to close this as consensus is pretty evident. Only question is how a ban is considered worth doing in comparison to the current reality of an indefinite block without talk page access. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll slap the banned template on the user page in place of the indeffed template. Also see WP:BLOCKBANDIFF. Since the list of banned users is gone that's all that can be done. Just a formality. This is a sockpuppeteer who abuses IPs, so talk page access being revoked is no big deal to them anyway. Doctalk08:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, this is not an esoteric roundabout request for an interpretation of a block vs. a ban by the closer. The community has spoken. Close this as a registered ban or let someone else do it. Doctalk09:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@Euryalus: The primary reason for a formal ban is so that the edits of the banned user can, when recognized, be immediately deleted, and the reverting editor is protected from 3RR. Being a somewhat ballsy (re: headlong precipitous) person, I'd do it anyway, but many editors prefer to have the protection of the formal banning.The other difference is that a blocked editor can have their block overturned by any admin who finds reason to, whereas an editor who has been banned by the community can (at least in theory) only be unbanned by the community, and an admin taking it upon themselves to undo the ban-block would have to answer to the community for doing so. BMK (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Beyond My Ken. I suppose I was asking a more practical question, in that I don't think there's much prospect of sanctions for anyone who reverts Sven70's edits but breaches 3RR, or that there's any real likelihood of an unblock after all this time and given the socking. So, mild reluctance re an admin action that has absolutely no practical effect. But as Doc9871 makes clear, in this instance the community rang for a janitor not a philosopher. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
SPI case archive (degenerates into him calling a another clerk incompetent, I AGF'd and blocked IPs but did not make a definitive decision to block Tiptoe despite my suspicions and another clerk's belief that he was socking)
Talk page highlights
Warned by admin - responded "I have done no such thing - and you complete lack of diffs proves I have done no such thing! Please leave my talk page alone and cease your harassment."
Blocked in December ("Personal attacks or harassment: hounding another editor; egregious personal attack")
Warned in April by an admin to stop refactoring talk page comments. Responded "Nothing will be avoided in the future because there is nothing needed to be avoided."
Blocked again in April ("Disruptive editing: Edit warring, battleground behavior, refusal to acknowledge opposing statements, BLP violations") to which he states "There are plenty of reasons to appeal - but I won't waste my time appealing it since that would give administrators the delusion that I respect them and would contribute to the sense of authority that appeals give them." Talk page access revoked.
Most recent block for two weeks which I placed ("Disruptive editing: combative refactoring of talk pages, nationalistic edit-warring"). This personal attack is still on the talk page where he invokes a variant of Godwin's law. Clearly, since I blocked him I must be a racist.
I believe that this editor A.) may not be here to contribute in which case he should be blocked indefinitely or B.) if he is allowed to continue editing that a permanent topic ban needs to be placed which prevents him from editing anything related to Turkish/Armenian subjects broadly construed related to Armenia, Turkey, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted. (Language updated for less ambiguity) Thoughts? — Berean Hunter(talk)14:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC) updated 14:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm opposed to a ban from "Turkish/Armenian subjects broadly construed", because it's ambiguous. Do you mean "from Turkish subjects and Armenian subjects, broadly construed" or "the subject of Turkish-Armenian relations, broadly construed"? As long as your proposed ban has a clear scope, I don't have an opinion; I just want things to be unambiguous. Nyttend (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clearer. I would suggest language borrowed from a Arbcom motion of a similar conflict area dispute with a wording designed to quash disruptive editing...so I would suggest "related to Armenia, Turkey, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted." I believe this was crafted in a second case precisely to prevent people from skirting the previous ambiguous language. If you feel that this has room for improvement, I'm open for suggestions. — Berean Hunter(talk)23:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That's nice and clear: I have no suggestions for improvement, and no wording-based objections, but again, no opinion on the idea you're proposing. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
My thoughts are to be found on your talk page, where another experienced editor has told you in no uncertain terms that your block was wrong. There's no need for any of this. Tiptoe has contributed positively to the encyclopaedia and a WP:NOTHERE indef block would be a serious misstep. Tiptoe has not pursued an agenda, so I don't see why he should be topic-banned from Turkish/Armenian articles, either. I also question the soundness of the April block. Alakzi (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Admins certainly do have discretion to deal with nationalist editing on Turkish or Armenian topics via WP:ARBAA2. This comment is a gem: "Your final comment reveals you are a racist little cunt too, it seems.." and doesn't bode well for his courteous participation in the future on these articles. Tiptoe's block record so far in 2015 doesn't look good. His article edits are frequently OK but his talk comments can be awful, and he can't resist removing others' comments from talk pages. He can practically set the standard for battleground editing. (Those not familiar with his record can look at the block summaries of all his blocks so far in 2015). I'd agree that an indefinite block is justifiable. Give him the option of requesting unblock in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just a note that the person who gave rise to this ANI report last month has returned under a new IP address, 79.20.162.245 (talk·contribs). I've dropped a (final) warning on the IP's talk page, and he seems to have stopped for now; but any folks with articles containing Italian on their watchlists may want to be on the lookout for his showing up at other IPs. Deor (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A user named Flyer 22 reverted this IP but didn't do anything but leave a warning template which seems like no good to me (doesn't look at like an attempt to cause disruption or hurt Wikipedia), but apart from that, I can't say much else. This might be a blocked editor using another IP according to one user. Dustin(talk)22:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This is entirely a content dispute, which may shortly became a behavioral problem if the IP doesn't stop reverting the edits of multiple editors to restore to his preferred (and inaccurate) version of the article. BMK (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, the last thread which was titled "hi their wikipedians" was this one from June 5th May 21st, which was started by User:Itaykaufman12, whose account is indef blocked for CheckUser-verified sockpuppetry. A look at the previous thread and this one will verify that, without a doubt, User:79.181.101.207 is the same person. Therefore, the IP should be blocked for block evasion and this thread closed. BMK (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, you don't seem to get it. You're blocked. You don't get to edit, period. Anything you do right now is going to be automatically reverted - at this point, sight unseen. Nothing you do to the Einstein article -- or any other article for that matter -- is going to survive, because this is no longer a content dispute in any way, shape or form, Now, it's about block evasion and sockpuppetry. BMK (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
how is writing that einstein was pacifist until 1933 got any thing with israel/palestine conflict? and what is the problem to accept this edit when i gave already 5 reliable sources? since when wikipedia editors became god and know any thing from any thing? so you saying now we should throw all our books and listen only to the wiki editors? give me source that contradictory my claim and i will stop insist edit it. any way writing that einstein was pacifist until 1933 got nothing to israel/palestine conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.101.207 (talk) 00:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC) im not the other account all i wrote is that einstein was pacifist until 1933. i got no interest in israel/palestine conflict. so may you please approved this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.101.207 (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just out of curiosity, do retired admins automatically get desysopped? I ask because I came across Scottywong's user and talk pages, which list him/her as being retired. Erpertblah, blah, blah...04:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@Erpert: Admins with no activity after a year are desysopped (is that even a word) by the 'crats. See WP:INACTIVE for more information. An admin can also ask a crat to remove their bit if they wish if they've retired for real and don't want to wait a whole year. But I don't think they remove admin rights just because of a notice in the user's page. §FreeRangeFrogcroak04:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Removing rights just because of a template would be thoroughly inappropriate: the only acceptable reasons for removing admin rights are inactivity, bad behavior leading to an arbitration case, or an explicit request by the admin. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Admin tools are also removed from accounts if it's confirmed that an admin has passed away (which has sadly occurred on a few occasions). Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
True. But simply "I'm retiring" wouldn't be grounds for removal; people un-retire frequently, and some people edit despite the template. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I've taken Wikibreaks too. Actually, I advocate Wikibreaks. Wielding the mop can induce burnout, breaks restore perspective. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Guy: I respect the extra burden that admins take on, but, believe me, burnout happens to us rank-and-file editors as well. I actually think it's a serious systemic problem in the way Wikipedia was set-up and is structured, but I'm also fairly certain that the cause is linked to things which are so basic that it's probably next to impossible to change them -- at least, the WMF has refused to consider some of the easier things that could be done to help, and the pushback from the community to other things would be considerable. All of which is unfortunate, as editing Wikipedia should be more enjoyable, and not just hopelessly addicting. BMK (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Because of WP:WER, I've seen a lot of burn out. There isn't any single thing to do about it, from what we could tell. As for removing bits, I had my admin bit removed for a few months right after filing for divorce (after 22 years...), to make sure I didn't screw up because I was so distracted. I was a little crispy burnt myself, but I try to change up what I do yearly to keep it interesting. Same thing for my job of 21 years. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it is healthy and preferable for an admin to temporarily give up the mop if real-life is too preoccupying (work, family, moves, health, etc.) or if an admin finds himself getting jaded and cynical. I know I took a wikibreak last year and while I'd never take one again that was as long, I came back refreshed and ready to ease my way back into the editing routine, so it's my advice both to editors and admins. If one finds oneself dreading coming on to Wikipedia, it's time for a break. It's better than editing with a cloud over your head and a bad mood. LizRead!Talk!19:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello admin community! I am pleased to announce the deployment of the new Twinkle block module. Over the past few months I've worked with several admins and Twinkle's maintainers to bring this module to you, geared toward productivity. I am confident you all will come to enjoy this update but it may take some getting used to. The major change that will affect you is that block templates are no longer issued from the Warn module, but from the new Block module. Just uncheck block to issue only the template. If the module is used as intended, you'll almost always be blocking and issuing the template at the same time using Twinkle.
Allow me to briefly demonstrate what would be a common scenario and the intended workflow with Twinkle:
If the user has been blocked before, you will see a message in red that reads "This user has been blocked in the past (block log)". Clicking the block log link will open it in a new tab. Use that to determine the duration you want to use
Choose your options accordingly. You'll almost always choose a preset and then adjust only the duration if necessary
Execute the block and be amazed! (hopefully)
So the idea is that you'll never have to go to Special:Block again, and that letting JavaScript do both the blocking and issuing of the template will save you mucho time.
Please share any feedback that you may have. I'm actively working on this and will try to be as responsive as possible in addressing your concerns. Below is a list of known bugs that will be squashed no more than 12 hours from the time of writing. Thank you! — MusikAnimaltalk17:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It should create the talk page if it doesn't exist. The issuing of the block template should function the same as it did when it was in the Warn module, except for that bug with the duration mentioned above =P — MusikAnimaltalk18:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
It was a problem the first time, but the second time I tried it it worked fine. Funny thing is, MusikAnimal, I've been meaning to ask some smart person to make something like this--blocking and notifying in one go--but never got around to it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes some will still use EasyBlock, as it serves a different purpose I believe. Twinkle block is more of a full-control interface rather than quick and dirty vandal-blocking tool. — MusikAnimaltalk22:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I still use EasyBlock for some things, and the Twinkle module for some other things (I have been using the Twinkle module for about a month). They both work well. Also echoing Chillum below. --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks very useful, thanks for the work. Just came across it now - I blocked as normal, then agonized for a while that the block option was missing from TW's warnings popup. When I found the new menu item I quickly chose a template and this notice was posted. In these (rare, I assume) cases, can it say "until" instead of "for a period of"? —SMALLJIM08:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Smalljim: Did you have this functionality before with the Warn module? I don't see a way to change the wording with the {{uw-block}} family of templates. However, I am going to release an update that will allow you to omit a duration parameter, so it will read "you have been blocked temporarily". Would that work for you? — MusikAnimaltalk15:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
In the rare case of just issuing a block notice (i.e. if the "block" tickbox is cleared) the expiry param in the template should be blank (like the old TW block option did), so that the template then fills in "blocked temporarily", rather than getting something like "blocked from editing for a period of Tue, 16 Jun 2015 08:27:53 GMT", as I did. I think I understand why it happens - if posting the template after the block was issued separately, the original block length parameter ("31 hours" or whatever) is no longer available since it's been converted by the system to a block-expiry timestamp. But per my reply to your 2nd comment, I don't expect this to occur often. I've issued a few blocks today using the full system and it's looking good.(*) —SMALLJIM17:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
(*) Not sure about having the page name included in the block notice by default though - that's not how it used to work. —SMALLJIM17:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I can make that happen. When issuing only a template, leave the duration parameter empty. Thank you for catching that! Smalljim About the page name: I assume you mean how the linked article is supplied when vanarticle parameter is present in the URL. I believe this is default-functionality (I don't think I added it), and you should see the same when issuing any other warnings. As far as I know this vanarticle URL parameter is only set when an edit is reverted with Twinkle and the user's talk page opens up in a new window. — MusikAnimaltalk17:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
1). Great! 2). After rolling back a vandalism edit, I'd go to the user's talk page to check the warnings: if appropriate I'd warn again (the vanarticle param being useful), but if it was appropriate to block, I'd use Special:Block to do so, then go back to the UTP and use TW to issue the block notice: the link to the "vanarticle" param would therefore be lost and it wouldn't appear in the block notice. Most block notices don't include it and I don't honestly think it's appropriate in most cases (unless the vandal has only worked on that one page). Don't know what others think, but I think it should be omitted, if possible. —SMALLJIM18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Got it. This makes sense to me... if there was really a single article that was the target of disruption you can simply put it in yourself. The script should not assume that. I just looked at the code and this is easy enough to remove, so consider it done — MusikAnimaltalk18:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
That would be excellent, thanks. I'll let you know if I come across anything else in the next few days. It's proving very useful so far :) —SMALLJIM22:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Also let me note that moving forward you can use Twinkle to perform the block and add the template at the same time, and it will correctly add "31 hours" or what have you in the template. If you are in fact opting with adding a timestamp instead of a duration, you may wish to use the "exclude duration in template" option that I've mentioned above, which I hopefully will have deployed for you sometime today. — MusikAnimaltalk15:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I get that - see above. This was just the first time I came across it without knowing of your enhancement. —SMALLJIM17:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, this is already proving useful. However, blocking with talk page access revoked does not hand out a template with notalk=yes. MER-C12:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@MER-C: Interesting. I tried out several templates in my sandbox, such as {{uw-block|notalk=y}} and it didn't see to note anything about talk page access being revoked. There is however an option to do a "Generic block with talk page access revoked". This will use an appropriate template, but it should be fixed to have the same block options as the normal "Generic block (custom reason)", which I can do. Would that preset suffice for you moving forward? Or could you share which templates accept the notalk=yes parameter? — MusikAnimaltalk15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Addendum: I was using notalk=y and not notalk=yes. This is a great idea and I will implement it so that if "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked" is checked the script will append the notalk=yes parameter. Thanks! — MusikAnimaltalk16:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
@Berean Hunter: Hmm, how does this script have a dependency on Twinkle? I see in the code where it generates the block notices. Are you saying you were using Twinkle to issue block notices? — MusikAnimaltalk16:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, odd. When I did this case earlier, it didn't tag so I manually tagged and then found the thread at WT:Twinkle which lead to this thread. I went back and tried tagging again just now and it works. (shrugs) Happy that it is working. — Berean Hunter(talk)17:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Spelling mistake: Preset - Extended reasons - "Possible comprimised account". Should be "compromised". —SMALLJIM13:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Smalljim and MER-C: Thank you for your feedback! I've updated the module and fixed all the aforementioned bugs and added a few other things (options to exclude duration parameter from template and option to add |notalk=yes when issuing only a template). This has been tested thoroughly on testwiki and I tried a few things over at WP:NAS and all seems fine, but please let me otherwise. Best — MusikAnimaltalk00:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather: With the old Twinkle I believe you could not issue {{uw-spoablock}} without it being for an indefinite duration, and now I see why. That template apparently does not conform to the stewardship of WikiProject User Warnings (doesn't accept the time= parameter), and has it own system of parameters to distinguish the sockmaster from sockpuppet.Instead, there should be two different templates conforming to standards. One would be the indefinite one for a sockpuppet and the other for the sockmaster which would accept a duration. I will post at WT:UW and see if I can't make these templates myself.In the meantime, you should probably reserve {{uw-spoablock}} for sockpuppet accounts, and use the generic block template for the sockmaster, manually typing in the block reason. However for IPs I would use the block evasion template and not a sockpuppet-related one at all. — MusikAnimaltalk15:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@Smalljim: NOTHERE is in the "common reasons" at the top. Is there a corresponding template for long-term abuse? If not, which template should we use? — MusikAnimaltalk21:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. In the preset common reasons in the new TW, I've got "Anonblock" and "Anonblock - likely a school", "School block", "Generic block (custom reason) - IP", and "Vandalism". I'm sure NOTHERE's not there! Nor should it be, because it isn't a common block reason. But I can't see it in the rest of the list either.
In Special:Block, LTA and NOTHERE appear, one above the other just before "Revoking talk page access", the last entry in the "Common block reasons" section.{{Uw-nothereblock}} is available for NOTHERE, but I don't think there's one for Long-term abuse. I think Long-term abuse may have been added to Special:Block fairly recently, and it may be that the intention is not to template the LTabuser's talk page. I'll see if I can find any discussion about it. —SMALLJIM22:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've struck most of the above because I've found NOTHERE - I was looking at it with an IP selected, not a registered user. Sorry about that! I'm still not convinced that it should be one of the common reasons though. Regarding Long-term abuse, is it necessary to have a template for it to be added? —SMALLJIM19:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@Smalljim: (let me know if I should stop pinging you) I admittedly am going off of my own practices in putting NOTHERE as a common reason, but this seems to be fairly popular for the anti-vandal admins. The idea being if you've got a blatant vandal that made but a few good edits, NOTHERE would be most fitting indef template. On a typical day I use it several times. I'm of course happy to adjust the ordering on whatever consensus supports. Which brings me to your next question: I can definitely implement a special case where the long-term abuse preset will uncheck the issuing of a template, but since default behaviour with Twinkle can influence actual practices, I'd like to see others showing support first. In my opinion it makes sense, sort of a WP:DENY scenario. — MusikAnimaltalk20:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
For LTA user accounts I would support denying recognition. However in my experience most LTA IPs are only using the IP briefly. For them a the likely audience of the template is the next person to use that IP, often not long later on a cell phone. Chillum20:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
(Yes, MusikAnimal, no-ping is fine for now) I agree that WP:NOTHERE can be a very useful block reason. My concern is that its home, WP:HERE, only has the status of an information page. I'd suggest that it's OK to have it tucked away towards the bottom of the list of block reasons, but not up top with the policy-based ones. Personally I'd like {{softerblock}} above the scroll because I use that one a lot at present – maybe the list order could be customisable? I agree with Chillum regarding LTA. —SMALLJIM10:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:VOA is also an information page, but undoubtedly one of the most common block reasons on a day to day basis. For the purposes of the script it's more about usage than what block reason entails. What I am going to do I think is create a tool to rearrange the list in Twinkle preferences. This is the only mention of wanting to move NOTHERE but I've had requests to rearrange other items, so sounds like people want control, so I shall provide it :) — MusikAnimaltalk20:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hehe, so it is! Though it is solidly based on current policy: "Vandalism is prohibited". Anyway ... I'm not going to argue about if you can make the order customisable – that would be ideal. Should we continue any further detailed discussion at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle? —SMALLJIM21:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This entire thread probably should have been at WT:TW to begin with, but I guess I wanted it geared toward the admins, as this noticeboard is. I've got nothing more for this topic in particular. If you're okay with a customizable dropdown than I am too! I'm also convinced LTA can be added and by default unchecks adding of a template. It may be a bit before this update happens, just so you know. Hopefully within a week's time. Best — MusikAnimaltalk21:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Ugh. Looking at the way the Twinkle preferences panel works, it is not going to be easy to implement custom ordering. By any stretch of the imagination. I'm afraid this will have to be on hold. What am going to do is produce actual usage statistics of which types of blocks are the most popular, and I will reorder based on that. Right of the bat I see that "disruptive editing" should be in the common reasons. Anyway sorry if I got your hopes up :/ It's still on the backburner, though! — MusikAnimaltalk01:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
A user reveals personal information in their summary or edit contents, an administrator notices and decides to revdel the edit out of courtesy. However the interface for revdel says FOR USE BY OVERSIGHTERS ONLY, when suppressing privacy and defamation for the criteria User edited while logged-out, revealing IP address and Revealing of non-public identifying or personal information. If the admin is not an oversighter, does that mean they cannot revdel those types of edits? §FreeRangeFrogcroak21:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Good question. If I ran across an edit that needed OSing, I would be inclined to REV DEL then contact OS, to first get it out of the public eye (regardless of rationale I used in the interface), but not sure if that is some new change or what. Dennis Brown - 2¢22:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
And the policy seems to contradict itself on this, because it lists material that could be suppressed as Revdel that is elsewhere implied to be the sole domain of oversight. §FreeRangeFrogcroak22:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I've tended to break the rules: I'll G6-delete the article and then restore it minus the offending edit(s) before requesting oversight. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: What I've been told about those is that the interface uses the same list of rationales for oversight and for revdel. Those rationales are intended to be used as rationales for oversight only; they're not intended as rationales for revdel--if nothing else, the oversight rationales don't have any links to the revdel policy, which obviously isn't an issue for the private oversight log but is for the public revdel log. You're welcome--encouraged, in fact--to revdel edits that you send to oversight; you should just use one of the more generic revdel-oriented rationales to do so. Writ Keeper⚇♔15:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
If I can chime in with my own experience: of the very few times where I accidentally edited while logged out, I RevDel'ed the info but did not request OS -- personally, hiding it from "the public" was sufficient for my peace of mind and I did feel like suppression from admins was necessary. If I had, I would've similarly RevDel'ed + requested OS. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉22:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@Writ Keeper: Thank you for the clarification. Here's the 64K question though, what happens if I revdel, contact oversight and then they say no? I assume I have to go back and make the revisions visible again? §FreeRangeFrogcroak22:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, generally speaking, no; oversightable edits are a strict subset of revdelable edits. So, if you've deemed it worthy of sending to oversight, you will have already deemed it worthy to revdel, and since there are edits that warrant revdel but not oversight, the oversighter's decision on OS doesn't have to override your admin decision on simple revdel. Writ Keeper⚇♔22:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, keep in mind Oversighters are also admins -- if they think that even RevDel was too much, they have the tools to deal with it, or at least talk to you about it (and/or can refer clear misuse of RevDel to ArbCom). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉23:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
(As an OSer) Everything above is correct. Interface uses the same reasons which is why there are both RevDel and OS reasons there. As it says at WP:REVDEL I'd encourage admins to use the RevDel reasons if they want to delete before sending to Oversighters as it draws less attention and if an OSer declines to Oversight there's no need to change the reason (from an OS reason to a RevDel reason). The exceptions I can think of to Writ Keeper's comment above are editing logged out and revealing personally identifying information about yourself which aren't covered by the RevDel policy AFAIK so if an OS declines to suppress (very likely) it might need to be un-revdel'd. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Thank you for the clarification. Just one question here, irrelevant to the situation that made me raise the issue in the first place. You're saying that if I mistakenly edit while logged out and I'm worried about my privacy, you would deny my request to oversight my IP address? §FreeRangeFrogcroak18:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@Callanecc and FreeRangeFrog: Removing IP addresses is covered by RevDel. "RevisionDelete can be used to hide any privacy breaching and/or defamation posts while waiting for Oversight." And on the linked page, "This includes hiding the IP data of editors who accidentally logged out and thus inadvertently revealed their own IP addresses. Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing this information." --NeilNtalk to me21:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog:: No not at all that would definitely be suppressed. I was thinking of a scenario like this: person vandalises with IP and is sitting on lvl 4 warning, then logs into their account and requests suppression - that would probably not be granted as it would be trying to avoid scrutiny. @NeilN: Yes definitely can be revision deleted before suppression, but if suppression is declined then it puts it in a limbo of not really being covered as it's no longer waiting for suppression (but depending on the circumstance you might be able IAR and keep it revision deleted). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Getting back to the heart of the matter, the suppression reasons are red flags that tend to attract attention if they are publicly visible (it's okay to admit that even administrators get curious), and that is why they're marked "for use by oversighters only" - our logged reasons are not publicly visible when doing suppressions. If an administrator was to use the same reason, it will be publicly visible. Keep in mind that not everything gets revdeleted or suppressed as soon as it occurs; it may not be noticed until hours, days, months, and sometimes even years later, so there is always the chance that the edit in question will be "findable" in one of the site dumps if someone is motivated enough. I can remember there used to be a thread or two on Wikipedia Review just pulling out "oversighted" edits, and for all I know there is a non-public one on WO or even some public ones on other off-wiki criticism sites. So, yeah. No point giving them free material - we're doing those suppressions for a reason, most of them pretty obvious. Risker (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The suppression and revision deletion interfaces are the same interface in the software. Although the software supports conditionally displaying the suppression tick box, it doesn't seem to support conditionally displaying customised suppression messages in the dropdown. It probably should. I filed phab:T102581 to track that request. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Jaam0121 (talk·contribs) was blocked at the end of last year for edit-warring and had a declined unblocked request on 7 January. He's now appealed his block and has pinpointed to specific articles he wants to write about, in perfectly acceptable English in my view. I realise the standard offer says 6 months, not 5, but I think this meets the spirit of that essay, and that's what's important. I'm happy to unblock (per basic conditions such as any more 3RR violations will get a indef) - does anyone have any objections? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
"Perfectly acceptable English" is something of an overstatement, but I've read worse. Sounds good to me. Huon (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry to be difficult, but I would have serious problems in accepting this user's unblock. I feel that his standard of English is unsatisfactory, and would invoke competence issues. I am certain that there are other language wikipedias in which he would be more comfortable.--Anthony Bradbury"talk"21:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with the esteemed Mr. Bradbury and others. CIR due to language skills. The odds of this becoming a problem in the future are closer to 1 than 0. Dennis Brown - 2¢22:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Greetings to the entire community making life wikipedia article. I dirigo to plant a drawback orginó an edit war, in which the user User:DonBarchangaDonBarchanga (talk·contribs) added DonBarchanga article modifying information supported by official figures and very safe source. The problem is the figures for Venezuela, which according to the National Statistics Institute (Single demographic entity, governmental and able to provide data of this kind in the country) it is clear with the percentage of the population, which ignores the user. Venezuela is a very racially mixed nation. Research in 2001 on genetic diversity by the Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Research (Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, IVIC) in which the population was compared to the historical patterns of the colonial castes. According to the last population census in Venezuela conducted by the National Institute Estadististica (INE), the population in the country afrodescendienten represents 2.8% of the national total, which is 181 157 result in the number of Venezuelans with black racial characteristics[55]. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the user modifies the figure exaggerated, standing at 8.7 million, which is obviously false. The reference points [56] which is the year 2009, while the INE 2011 is also such reference is to the embassy, and the place is the Venezuelan government. I think it is clear, unfortunately I found myself involved in an edit war by trying to restore the information because despite trying to dialogue with the user I never received a response or Animos discuss here by the user, which is unfortunate. Currently, the issue is for the user, and can not be reversed because the article was protected in view of the edit war.. I hope to intervene in this discussion, although I sincerely doubt it does. Thank you very much, greetings.
It may indeed be translated from a machine, as some of the untranslated words are Spanish typos. --TL22 (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with others here that the language is just too poor to fully function on the English Wikipedia...I believe the block must stay. only (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
There's a time and place for the use of mechanical translation. I've used it to translate articles from other language Wikipedias, which I then use as a basis for an English article, after more research and extensive re-writing -- but as a means of communication on talk pages it truly sucks, and if you can't communicate with other editors in English, you shouldn't be editing here. I wouldn't think of editing on French Wikipedia, for instance, even though I know just enough French to make simplistic edits such as Jaam0121 describes in the diff provided by AndyTheGrump, and I wouldn't edit there because I would have no way of communicating with other editors. As English Wikipedia, we have enough problems with different varieties of English and the conflicts that arise from them, we don't need more problems from people whose command of English is not sufficient to edit and communicate in more than a sub-rudimentary way. BMK (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but the English isn't really understandable ... at all - I know this has been mentioned above but it'd be like me editing on for instance a Dutch Wikipedia and using a translator to help .... It just wouldn't work and ofcourse I'd end up being blocked especially if I were writing on talkpages and unfortunately in this case with him it doesn't work .... I have to agree with everyone above keeping the block seems the best option here. –Davey2010Talk00:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd have to oppose an unblock as well. There is a fundamental expectation that editors be able to communicate effectively in whatever language they are contributing in. Blackmane (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment I'm not having a problem understanding what they're saying, though I can see that others might and the potential for mistranslations is certainly there. I'd be willing to support an unblock if they could show that their understanding of English would not get in the way of making changes to articles by giving us some example changes. They've said this on their talk page, but maybe I've missed something, so, unless their English skills were previously an issue, they were blocked for edit warring, not poor English. There's no reason to think a problem that didn't exist before will suddenly pop up, surely they didn't forget all the English they knew in the few months they've been blocked. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
PhantomTech - I think I can get the gist of what Jaam0121 is tying to say after several rather laborious read-throughs of a passage such as the one I posted above, but I'm far from certain that I am correct, and such uncertainty usually leads to misunderstandings which can, indeed, end up in edit wars. In any case, it is irrelevant that the original block was for edit warring, we're now considering their overall capacity for editing here, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. That a lack of proficiency in English wasn't noticed before is perhaps interesting, but it's not a salient point, nor is their "I'm only going to do X" statement. If he's reinstated, is someone going to dog his edits to make sure that he only does "X"? No, he'll be just another editor until a problem pops up again, and he cannot cogently express himself to explain what's going on. BMK (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
There's no reason to have to trust their promise to stay in a certain area of editing, looking at their contributions shows that that's all they've ever done. I know that we're now considering other problems that they may have when editing, my point was that they've always been contributing with the same (or worse) level of English and if it wasn't causing a problem then, there is no reason to believe it would now. That said, while they seem to have been very active in keeping information up to date and their English did not seem to interfere with the changes they were making, as I skimmed over their contributions, I started to notice issues in places where their edits were contested so it does seem that problems simply went unnoticed instead of not existing. I have to agree then, that contributing to the English Wikipedia is likely to just cause more problems. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no criteria for how fluent or proficient someone is in English in order to edit. We do, however, have a policy about disruption. If this editor's contributions end up being a net-negative then we have to assess on those grounds. It may be unorthodox but I don't think they're helping, not until they improve their written English and stop using a translator. The Spanish Wikipedia was created for those who are fluent in other languages to contribute. I think it's also important to note that this editor was blocked for edit warring -- not poor English. Mkdwtalk17:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
It is true that the block was imposed for edit-warring, not for competence issues; but this is irrelevant at this point in time. An admin considering an unblock is expected to consider not only the original reason for the block, together with the comments made by the blocked editor about his block, but also in more general terms whether an unblock will or will not be of apparent or expected benefit to Wikipedia. Consideration of competence in this case is therefore entirely relevant and appropriate. I have commented on the competence issue above and will not, to avoid giving an impression of piling on, do so again. --Anthony Bradbury"talk"19:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I would also note that "competency" isn't an issue of character or mental stability. For instance, I wouldn't make a competent surgeon, so two weeks ago I had a real surgeon work on my knee. It does have to do with an individual's ability to assess their own limitations. I've gone in on foreign language Wikis and made changes and corrections, but I know the limits of the translator and limited myself to changing geographical features or measurements, and I didn't try to write long passages of prose. I know my limits, he doesn't. That is what makes competency an issue, an inability to recognize that his actions overreach his skill level. Wikipedia isn't a good place to practice your English skills, as you just cause more work for others. We have many editors with similar English skill levels who contribute here but limit themselves to small stuff, thus it never becomes an issue. They understand their limits. Again, he doesn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢12:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Leading up to March, the editor was making disruptive edits to music articles, genre warring specifically, and after this revision to an album article, they were blocked. I noticed a few days ago they had continued genre warring when a number of album articles I have on my watchlist showed similar changes, including some of the same articles they had been warned for disrupting in the past.
I suppose because these articles receive little-to-no attention, the editor's changes were not noticed by anyone else. Dan56 (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The only diffs that truly bother me are the last few. The first five are petty genre warring that I would probably just ignore unless they were part of a long-term issue. The sixth and seventh ones removed a reliable source and replaced it with original research. The eighth looks like edit warring to maintain original research. The last one looks like it removed a dead link in violation of WP:KDL. The review is archived at the Internet Archive, which he should have checked before removing it. Although WP:INFOBOXREF discourages citations in infoboxes, that does not mean that you can strip out citations and replace them with original research. Personally, I'd be satisfied with a statement that he's not going to genre war any more. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Dan56: please notify Lachlan Foley of this thread. Also, has there been any discussion or acknowledgment on his part of this issue? I have seen where other editors have raised the issue or warned him on his talk page but I do not see that he has replied anywhere. I would like to know if he has engaged with any other editors. — Berean Hunter(talk)02:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Dan56, notifying means following the instructions in the big orange box: "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." I've done so for you. --NeilNtalk to me21:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe a solution to the genre warring which is likely to continue in many articles by many users into the future is to display a notice such as in the 'Genre' section of the infobox (ideally written into the coding).
@NinjaRobotPirate:, after making the above promise in vain, this editor continued making genre changes to articles, thinking they're slick with edits like this (00:16, 17 June 2015, 01:26, 17 June 2015). It's pathetic how no administrative action has been taken against this editor, whose edits are strictly unexplained and unsourced changes to the genre parameter of the infobox in album articles (WP:GWAR). In this edit, they removed genre which are clearly cited within the article, but genre warriors tend not to read the actual articles. Dan56 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Kind of like how you didn't search those articles just then for references explicitly supporting claims on which genre the music is? That there is merely prose about what genre an album pertains to isn't enough.
I left "big beat" in the Chemical Brothers initially as I assumed big beat was that artist's established genre on Wikipedia, but in hindsight no genre should be listed that isn't explicitly referenced in-article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This editor had the nerve to genre war at this article on 10 June, removing clearly cited genres in place of unsourced genres, remove them altogether claiming they are not sourced (well DUH dude, you added them), and then reverting ME when I restored the cited revision from before he edited the article ([58]) Dan56 (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
This isn't clear to me because I can not find a policy, guideline or consensus that lends particular support to back up one way or the other. I see this thread at WikiProject Albums which really doesn't give any guidance on dealing with genre warring over referenced vs. non-referenced genres in the infobox. I would suggest that you get a discussion going over there with an intent on forming a more solid guideline. This guideline is vague. — Berean Hunter(talk)12:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Genre warring is a particular peeve of mine, so this discussion is of great concern to me. From the diffs, it appears that Lachlan Foley has been genre warring, signaled by the removal of cited genres, and the presence of WP:NOR-violating personal determinations as seen in the edit summary "I think this is mainly a big beat album, maybe with influences of other electronica, but alternative rock is really quite inappropriate here."[59] Genres should be cited in the article body, and if they are not, then they should be cited in the infobox. As well, disputed genres should be cited in both places in the same manner as controversial facts being cited both in the article body and the lead section. In no case should editors be making their own determination about what is the genre of a song or album, nor should they be shoving aside published genres that they do not agree with. Lachlan Foley is a productive editor in other ways but it would be very helpful to hear an affirmation that genre warring behavior will cease. Binksternet (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I think a block would be out of place at this moment. Checking Lachlan Foley's recent edits, I see him adding sources to unsourced genres (example), not causing problems as before. If he's now following our guidelines, a block would prevent him from improving Wikipedia (so I'd be violating the IAR policy by imposing it), and it would also be punitive: nobody would benefit, and the articles and he would suffer. If he's still violating standards in other edits, come back and show that I've overlooked those edits. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
PS, regarding the article that Binksternet links, Lachlan Foley today edited it to remove the genres entirely — they weren't cited in the infobox, and as far as I can see, the genres weren't even mentioned in the body. Unless I missed something, today's removal was thoroughly appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The interpretation by Lachlan Foley is wrong about what is found at WP:INFOBOXREF: the guideline does not absolutely forbid references in the infobox but Lachlan Foley is telling editors otherwise by way of hidden comment: "In order to add genres to an infobox, they must be cited in-article by reputable sources." The hidden comment is misleading; the guideline allows for citations to appear in the infobox but encourages editors to make more of an effort to put the information into the article body with a citation to support it. Unfortunately, the genre parameter is a battleground of a host of editors who have no intention of putting well-cited information into the article body – they care only about the genre. Lachlan Foley is apparently trying to foil the genre warriors, which is a fine sentiment, but the effort is based on an incorrect reading of the guideline. I would like to see a stop to this misleading hidden note placed by Lachlan Foley. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been following this, but I've just blocked Lachlan Foley for a week for disruptive editing to stop his outburst of reverting. One would have thought that an experienced editor would know that discussion is the correct way to proceed. If consensus here is that the block is wrong, feel free to change it without consulting me. —SMALLJIM08:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Edit-warring is wrong, but why was Lachlan Foley just blocked when nobody else was? He doesn't think that references are prohibited in the infobox: this diff, which I linked above, he simultaneously adds the comment and adds a copy of an existing citation to a genre. His point is correctly that we mustn't have a genre in the infobox unless there's a citation for that genre somewhere in the same article. So...in other words, why was he-and-only-he blocked for yesterday's actions when the only thing he did was participate in an edit war with others who weren't blocked? Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
PS (I'm probably going to edit-conflict with Smalljim!), the "this diff" was just yesterday, so it's not as if he had time to change his mind. Nyttend (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Nyttend: I didn't block him for anything he did yesterday, or for anything to do with the rights or wrongs of the genre question. I blocked him for the mass reposting, from 0751 GMT this morning, of his html comments without any attempt (that I can see) to first discuss whether they should be there or not - WP:BRD. As I said, if the consensus here is that the block is incorrect, someone please change it: I made it a week following the principle of escalating length, based on his two earlier blocks which appear to be for similar issues. —SMALLJIM15:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand; my question is why he deserves sanctions and Binksternet doesn't, or alternately (since I don't think Binksternet should be sanctioned) why he should sanctioned for it? There's nothing wrong with putting such a comment in the infobox, and actively removing it seems mildly problematic to me; the only problem I see here is the potential of edit-warring, and one revert on a bunch of pages doesn't seem to be a big problem. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. Can we check that we agree on the facts? Early today (starting with this edit) FL Boldly added over 100 html comments to infoboxes. Binksternet Reverted them and left a note here to explain why he thought they were inappropriate. Instead of Discussing, FL was rapidly adding the disputed html comments back again when I blocked him for doing so. Now since it seems that we're the only two admins in this thread (and I was only passing through!), if I've got the facts wrong, or you think it was inappropriate to block for failing to follow BRD (in view of his previous blocks), or if you think that he's served enough block time, then feel free to unblock him. He won't do it again, will he? —SMALLJIM18:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I approve of the effort to put a hidden note into the genre area of the infoboxes of songs, albums and musical artists, but the wording ought to be hammered out at the albums wikiproject, stripped down for the clearest reading. Something like "all genres must be referenced". Ideally the agreed-upon text would become part of the infobox standard template. The problem I had with Lachlan Foley's wording is that it could be misinterpreted too easily, and it was being implemented unilaterally on a widespread basis without having the power of consensus behind it. Binksternet (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A very persistent vandal has been editing the article Cabbit since 2005 (diff of what I think is the first vandalism) to claim that Cabbits are real creatures. The user also refactors comments on the talk pages to make it look like others support that position or to disparage the people who point out the vandalism (e.g., [60] for the latest round of vandalism). The article has had several lengthy semi-protections ([61]), and I've requested another at WP:RFPP. The user always returns to the article once semi-protection ends, even after semi-protections of a year or two (the latest round of vandalism includes [62]). They don't seem to do anything other than vandalize (which occasionally includes other articles, e.g., [63] where they were complaining about the Canadian International Air Show). I'm not exactly sure if site-banning an IP user is normally done or is of any benefit in doing so, but given that this user has been very persistent at vandalizing for almost a decade now, I was hoping they could be site-banned. Calathan (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Range of IP's would be difficult(impossible) to hit with an actual block or ban as they keep shifting every batch. Might just be easier stick a long wave on protection on the page. Amortias (T)(C) 19:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I have requested indefinite semi-protection for the page, but I wasn't sure if anything else could or should be done beyond that. If nothing else can be done, then I guess protecting the page again will have to suffice. Calathan (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for protecting the page, Nyttend. If banning the user would provide any benefit, then I support it. Calathan (talk) 02:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
For admins who often find themselves deleting spam/vandalism user pages and then blocking the user: I've just finished writing User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage, and it might save you a lot of work. When viewing a spam/vandalism user page, it can delete the page, block the user, and issue the user with a block notice, all in one click. Plus, it's highly configurable, so you can use your own custom templates etc. with it. Please test it out and see what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius♪ talk ♪07:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Uhm... hey guys, I just wanted your noticing of my little concern about the very recent (mini-)event (hopefully a non-event at all) at Haneen Zoabi - just after I earlier posted a small alert here that's been somehow overlooked or unseen, we're now witnessing the fact that your care for the matter (preventive, arbitrative or whichever) might be really required. In a nutshell: Someone's attempting to modify the intro in an article about an Israeli-Arab politician in the way that's describing her as rather "Palestinian" thereby obviously introducing non-factual personal/political sentiments in intro's very first phrase where only most neutral definitions are supported. We have many articles on Israeli-Arab politicians and the definition as an Israeli Arab politician has remained same for pretty much all of them in the intros. So it's easy to notice there's an attempt to start a 'precedent' in just this one. This person was born within Israel (not in the Palestinian territories adjacent to it) and I guess we should work to leave intros devoid of identity projection plays; in any case, her Palestinian identity is already mentioned rightfully in the paragraph "Political views and opinions", which covers the identity matter; that should be the place and not the intro. Kindly follow this issue. Thanx. 5.102.207.49 (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The sole issue before us is the procedure of the close, and there is a clear consensus to vacate the close by Nyttend. There also appears to be a consensus that the RFC should run a longer period of time so that all the issues can be hashed out. As to the exact length or how many closers should close the RFC, that isn't something we need to decide here at review.
The RFC should again be transcluded, the previous close struck, and discussion should continue. Dennis Brown - 2¢02:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The closer, Nyttend, argued that although consensus emerged at the RFC, "primary sources such as news articles from the time of an event may not be used", the addition of a single word to the lead (that the accusations of abuse were of sexual nature) fails WP:PRIMARY, and thus the consensus is void per WP:CONLIMITED.
This novel interpretation, that articles, and media reports in TV and mainstream newspapers, in the aftermath of an event cannot be used as sources in Wikipedia articles, is one of the most puzzling I have ever seen. If such media reports can't be used as sources in articles, tens of thousands articles about public figures, and current events would be in breach of our content policies.
My reading is that Nyttend made a straightforward error in confusing the academic definition of primary source used by historians with the definition we use for WP:PRIMARY on Wikipedia. News stories soon after an event have to be used carefully, of course, avoiding WP:RECENTISM; contentious claims should wait until we have multiple high-quality sources to cite them to. But news sources about recent events are not and have never been considered to fall under WP:PRIMARY, and I find the suggestion that they would to be bizarre. (Additionally, as I pointed out elsewhere, if those sources are all primary then they cannot be used to source the allegations against Hastert at all; by his reading of the rules, we would have to completely avoid mentioning any allegations against anyone at all until enough time has passed for news sources to cease counting as WP:PRIMARY or additional sources appear. Nyttend's reasoning isn't an argument for deleting the word 'sexual' from the lead while leaving it in the body; it's an argument for removing any mention of the scandal entirely.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I was going to just let this request for review speak for itself, but since Aquillion commented I would like to respond. AFAIK, Nyttend was referring to (among several other things) the Wikipedia article Primary source. He certainly did not wikilink WP:Primary. Moreover, Cwobeel brings up a separate and later RFC at a policy page, and boasts that "all commenters so far are opposed", but please note that both Nyttend and myself are among the opposers there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
As Anythingyouwant said, Nyttend did not actually cite Wikipedia policy on what defines a primary source their close, merely their personal opinion on what is or is not primary. This seems like a bad thing to do when closing an RFC against a clear consensus while citing WP:CONLIMITED; plainly, if Anythingyouwant and Nyttend are unable to cite an actual policy in favor of their interpretation, then WP:CONLIMITED cannot apply. Wikipedia articles are often useful, informative, and interesting, but they are not policy, and you cannot overturn a consensus by citing one as your rationale. If you read WP:PRIMARY, it is clear that Nyttend's position on recent newspaper articles being primary sources is not supported by policy. --Aquillion (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The close by Nyttend referred back to policies that were explicitly cited in the RFC, saying: "As noted above, we are not a newspaper...." Incorporation by reference, is a fairly common phenomenon. I can't believe the huge controversy about one word, but then again there was Rodham.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I can't believe the huge controversy over what seems to me to be one well-sourced, entirely-uncontroversial word, either, but here we are! Nyttend's comments when I queried them on their talk page seem to indicate that their closure was based entirely on the belief that recent news reports are always primary (they seem to feel strongly about this); certainly I think that WP:NOTNEWS would be an unusual policy to cite for WP:CONLIMITED, since it clearly allows for breaking news when it is verified and relevant, as it is in this case. But strictly speaking they didn't cite that, either; in fact, they didn't explicitly cite any policies at all aside from WP:CONLIMITED itself. --Aquillion (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
If someone is going to close an RFC using WP:CONLIMITED (which is always, axiomatically, a controversial thing to do), I think they should at least explicitly tell people which policy they feel is being violated, yes, especially since editors going forward are probably going to try and work out a resolution that doesn't violate that policy. It also makes it likely that (if other people are asked to review that RFC), they're going to either scratch their heads and try to figure out what policy you meant, or just say "what? I don't see a policy that this consensus violates, this is a mistake and should be overturned" -- which is the conclusion I came to. A controversial closure obviously requires a more detailed rationale in order to answer the questions of people who are likely to object to it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant says above I can't believe the huge controversy about one word but fails to mention that the reason for the RFC was his staunch opposition to include the word "sexual" before "abuse" when referring to the Hastert scandal in the lede, despite an abundance of sources that describes the allegations in these terms. WP:DRAMA comes to mind here. - Cwobeel(talk)03:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad the drama is now at the right place — here — instead of users unilaterally undoing a close by an administrator, and conducting an RFC and a "secondary RFC" at a policy page to advance your position in a BLP content dispute. I'm going to kick back now, and have nothing more to say for the time being. It will be closed however it's closed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
The RFC on WP:NOR isn't about this one dispute in particular (although obviously that's what brought it up); an RFC on a core policy is going to take a lot longer to get anywhere than this will, so it'll finish long after this is done. The problem is that Nyttend (or someone else who saw his close on this) could go around using the same rationale elsewhere with regards to recent news articles being primary sources, which would cause problems... and after talking to Nyttend, he made it clear he intends to continue using that interpretation of what constitutes a primary source going forward. It's better to have a dispute over a core policy like that decided cleanly so that in the future we have an obvious place to point to to say "no, that's not what the policy means." I mean, you're right, this is over one silly word, but the question of what constitutes a primary source on Wikipedia is actually (in theory) important, in that it could have dramatic implications for how we write articles and could at least cause a lot of disruption if people start to go around removing otherwise high-quality sources on the premise that recent news sources are always primary and therefore can never be used for contentious claims for BLPs. --Aquillion (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
When I saw this RFC I was tempted to ask if it was a joke, it seemed like such an open-and-shut issue. This was borne out by the clear consensus both in the RFC itself and in related discussions at BLPN and WP:NOR. Nyttend acknowledged that consensus in his close, but overruled it based on a reading of wikipedia policy/guidelines that I've never seen anyone else use/advocate before. If the policy on primary sources is what Nyttend seems to think it is, then thousands of wiki editors violate that guideline daily. So I would definitely like to see an un-involved admin review the close - if only to stop this debate from snowballing further. It's already spilled over into multiple noticeboards and talk-pages and is not going to be resolved until Nyttend's close is either affirmed or overturned. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Reopen RfC, please, for new close, as the previous closer, most probably inadvertently, misstated Wikipedia policy. If necessary, a trio of admins can be corralled to close it. BMK (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Overturn the close, and a trout for Nyttend. We don't have special sourcing policies for leads, and newspapers articles do not fall into the realm of primary sources according to WP:PRIMARY. Even if they were primary sources, they are still allowable as long as they are carefully used for unvarnished facts. WP:RECENTISM is not even a guideline, let alone an overriding policy that can nullify consensus in a content RfC. The close is seriously flawed and demonstrates a poor understanding of our policies.- MrX02:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Reopen/overturn/whatever It's quite surprising that an experienced and generally level-headed admin could go so badly wrong in misstating policy. BMK's idea for a troika of admins to reconsider the closure has merit. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Overturn close. I agree with Aquillion, MrX, and Cwobeel completely. The rationale here is just wrong - in fact, bizarre. (In my 9+ years on the project it's up there for the most puzzling decision). There is no universe in which a newspaper report is a "primary source." We should immediately overturn the close, and summarily close the RfC in the opposite direction (since consensus is clear (WP:SNOW) there is no need to reopen). Neutralitytalk03:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Overturn close There was a clear consensus and the close did not reflect this. The policy reason cited for ignoring this is completely wrong and looks more like a supervote than a proper closure. Davewild (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Reopen Rfc I support a panel of three uninvolved admins reviewing this RfC closure. It will need more than one set of eyes to either confirm this policy reading (which I believe is mistaken) or reject it. A closure at an RfC should resolve problems, not cause thousands of sourced articles to be reevaluated. LizRead!Talk!14:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Overturn and let RfC run standard length The RfC was opened on June 13; the the close was made June 17, just 4 days later. I agree with others that the use of PRIMARY is incorrect here and I urge Nyytend to withdraw the close voluntarily. If Nyytend does not, the close should be overturned. After either re-opening, the RfC should be allowed to run the standard length to get more input before it is closed - there is no WP:NODEADLINE and it is clearly a sensitive issue. Jytdog (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Overturn Close - I can not imagine what the closer was thinking here. Solid newspaper reporting is the standard candle we judge and verify much of the 'current' material that exists on Wikipedia by. Whether we should be writing articles while events are ongoing or recent is another question. One which was not asked.
This close has the effect of whitewashing BLPs involved in recent/ongoing events by saying we can document everything but negative claims which someone considers contentious (A term whose definition is itself contentious here). If Nyytend meant something other than what the plain reading of their close states they should explain it here - actually they need to explain their reasoning for this close here regardless since it is so completely at odds with community standards and policy. JbhTalk15:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Cwobeel: Thank you for the link. I can not believe an veteran administrator would attempt to back-door a policy change like that. Much like the Army, there is a right way, a wrong way, and a Wikipedia way and admins must know and make decisions the Wikipedia way. We are not and never will be an encyclopedia like Britannica. As long as we document recent and ongoing events we must use news/newspapers. That Nyttend seems to either not understand that or desires to enforce his own viewpoint on sourcing in direct opposition to community consensus and policy is disturbing. I hope he reconsiders his close on his own and comes to understand why the community has responded in this was. I have not dealt with Nyttend before so I do not know if this was a one off mistake or typical however the second diff you provided is an extremely poor response for someone who has the trust of the community. JbhTalk16:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Reopen and discuss further: way too early; the close was kind of a supervote. The WP:PRIMARY policy concerns issues where interpreting a primary source would constitute or nearly constitute original research or for contentious statements; that the acts were of a sexual nature is not an extraordinary claim. More discussion is needed to critically analyze the sourcing - WP:PSTS was not the locus of the dispute. Esquivaliencet01:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
Ubikwit (talk·contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
MONGO (talk·contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.
Could we please get someone to please take Pending Revisions off at Mississippi, which is not a sensitive BLP but rather a general historical article? Semi-protect it if you must, but this is not PR material... Thanks. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Note that Pending Change Protection is not restricted to BLP violations, and per WP:PCPP may be used to combat persistent vandalism. Based on the history of the article, the only question to me is whether it should stay with PC1, or be raised to semi-protection. Monty84500:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Tim et al, an article like that attracts a steady stream of edits, some more helpful than others. The advantage of pending changes, in my personal opinion, is that it still allows the edits to be made but without readers seeing any rubbish added in less-than-helpful edits. The IP/new account edit rate is not overwhelming, so I think semi-protection would be overkill, but it's persistent enough that it needs something. That's my two cents anyway. If another admin feels strongly that it should be semi'd or unprotected, that's their prerogative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I really don't think Mississippi meets the threshold of "heavy and persistent vandalism" mentioned at the Pending Changes information page. Pending changes is intended for certain extreme cases, I believe — certainly nothing as mundane as a general page about a US state with a more or less ordinary vandalism rate. Carrite (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Many U.S. state articles seem to be under PC1 these days, and that may be warranted than you think – I can't speak to Mississippi, but I've been surprised at how many generally unhelpful edits I've come across PC reviewing the Kansas article, for example... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:36, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been seeing this problem a lot where an article will be written, but in another article that had a hyperlink the article stays red and doesn't link. In one case, it was this way for days. Is there a method to get the Internet to update and link the two articles? -O.R.Comms13:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you offer a few examples? I'm not sure of any general issues that would cause this except for a different spelling in the red link. LizRead!Talk!14:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't have any current examples, but it looks like I found the answer. It has to do with Wikipedia:Purge. The page doesn't get updated somehow on a particular computer. Thanks for your offer to help! -O.R.Comms14:14, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep, it's a cache issue. The links should still work, but will appear to be red until the cache is either manually or automatically purged (the latter can take a while). Now you know! ansh66600:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes it's true: after article creation, the red links directs to the newly created article but the red colour remains red. I had to edit the same code to enable blue.Cosmic Emperor 09:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
on this page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Political_views_of_Albert_Einstein#War i wrote "Einstein all his life was not absolute pacifist but rather been conceived pacifist which he believed using force is appropriate when an unconditionally enemy is bent to destroying the jewish people. " and yet this man https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Beyond_My_Ken undo me after i gave einstein EXACT words word by word he said it not me. "i did not say that i was an absolute pacifist, but rather that i had always been a convinced pacifist. while i am a convinced pacifist, there are circumstances which i believe to use of force is appropriate - namely in the face of an enemy unconditionally bent on destroying me and my people(the jews)"
this is his words not mine you i can not been undo after i gave his exact words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.138.76 (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you may have been reverted because your addition wasn't written in grammatical English - and posting a complaint here is wildly premature when you have made no effort to discuss this on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I have notified Beyond My Ken of this discussion as you are supposed to do. I see no effort at all by you to communicate before coming here. Chillum18:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Interesting that the IP posted here "before" posting to the article in question. Actually this looks like the return of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morbenmoshe. As you can see a variety of IPs have posted variations on the same item on the talk page and in the article over the last few weeks. I believe there was a previous thread about this here at ANI or elsewhere but I can't remember which at the moment. MarnetteD|Talk18:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
to AndyTheGrump i did discussed on the talk page this user just erased my comment and to MrnetteD the previous guy said einstein abandoned his pacifism in 1933 i admit he was longlife pacifist but not absolute and rather all his life being conceived pacifist. that is all im admiting he was pacifist all his life just not absolute pacifist. and im using two ip since my previous has malfunction in wifi what is make you think im the other account? it is 100% fine to use multiple ip's if you did not block yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.138.76 (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Sitush:, @Vanamonde93: and @Kautilya3: knows Human3015 is a POV pusher.Both Human3015 and Huhshyeh are engaged in POV pushing , needs to be topic banned.
Huhshyeh is an old user. he knows which source is reliable. He wants to show PFI as good organisation. He removes reliable sources and adds semi-reliable sources like muslimirror which will give positive reviews of radical Muslim outfit like PFI.--72.10.168.89 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
In all seriousness, the claim here itself is a bit of POV, and the links are just articles that put PFI in a negative light, seemingly do to their own actions. Perhaps worthwhile links in context, maybe not. But the argument presented here is difficult to take action on as there aren't any specific examples. You are asking us to go way back and start from the beginning on a bit of a wild goose chase. If you want people at ANI to take your claims serious, drop your own hyperbole and present diffs of them doing questionable actions in editing. That is something we can look at. If the issue is simply one of WP:WEIGHT, then the article talk page is the solution, or WP:DRN if that doesn't work. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown:@JzG: and @Anythingyouwant:You administrators must check the details.
This time i am giving you differences, and in details. i gave you links from reputed sources, so that administrators will know PFI is radical Muslim outfit. I am not POV pushing if i give links which show the truth. No reliable source is availbale where they talk positive about PFI. Read thisstatement by Kerala Chief Minister V. S. Achuthanandan in 2010. At that he was CM. 2.
1- Huhshyeh removing reliable sources from Deccan Herald
5- adding original research
look at it carefully: He added first link from muslimirror, second link from reliable source timesofindia. He states that PFI donates bloods. In the timesofindia source he added clearly mentions "Usually we involve in blood donation campaigns in summer, but this season we are busy with the election campaign. We have postponed our blood donation campaign now. We are addressing only emergency cases," said Ahmed Idris, district president, Popular Front of India.
Some Muslim outfits do donate blood. Those Muslims outfits are not Popular Front Of India.
6- he says no thing official about it
Now look at the sources i mentioned that Dennis Brown termed as POV pushing. He is fully aware of those news. I am sure he has some relation to PFI.
I think this is a storm in a tea cup. However, there is a larger issue that we might think about. Popular Front of India and its associated Social Democratic Party of India, are new Muslim organisations in India whose advert represents a growing Muslim reaction to the rise of Hindu nationalism over the last few decades. Muslims have traditionally supported the Congress party with a secularist ideology. With the decline of the Congress party, they have lost their political voice. It is difficult for them to do much other than to make noise because, in most parts of India, they constitute only 10-15% of the population and, in a first-past-the-post system, they get no representation at all. There is no doubt that some elements of these organisations are extremist but it would be wrong to paint the entire organisations as extremist. Reading the mainstream press however gives one the impression that they are extremist organisations. The counterpoints are provided in community outlets such as muslimvoice.com or twocircles.net which are not considered reliable sources by us. So, how do we provide the needed balance? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: You might be talking about All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, All India United Democratic Front and Indian Union Muslim League which are political parties and they made an impressive debut in Maharshtra assembly polls, Assam elections. They have become a voice for Muslims. I disagree with you that mainstream media will suppress any atrocities against Muslims. You might remember Shiv Sena MP force feeds fasting Muslim: A curious case of communal chapati. If Popular Front Of India is indeed full of good people then I hope you can give references from South based English newspapers as The Hindu, Indian Express, Deccan Chronicle, Malayala Manorama. News channels like NDTV , Headlines Today, Aaj Tak have always highlighted the plight of Muslims and given voice to the Muslims. Do you have any reliable source that Indian Media is biased against Popular Front Of India and it's leaders.Underplaying Chopping off a teacher's hand, Murders of innocent people is not right. And this organization don't have any recognition outside Kerala and some parts of Karnataka. Uttar Pradesh Muslims support Samajwadi party. West Bengal Muslims support TMC. Jammu and Kashmir which is India's only Muslim majority state didn't vote for Popular Front Of India, or did they? Coming to this post; The IP accused two users but later on changed his tracks. Cosmic Emperor 13:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the content issues of the kind you are bringing do not belong here. The point I am raising is not content, but rather the need to accommodate community sources that are not normally reliable sources by our policies. I have nothing but admiration for twocircles.net, for examples, whose articles have been referenced in scholarly articles.[1] - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 You are right. Twocircles is a reliable source. But others which are used by Huhshyeh are not at all reliable. Looking at Huhshyeh's editing pattern; do you see him following WP:NPOV, as that's the original debate. ?Cosmic Emperor 03:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I take it as a given that all editors bring to Wikipedia their respective points of view, especially in IPA pages and those dealing with religious issues. Genuine neutrality among editors is very hard to find. The question then is whether people are listening to each other in the talk page discussions or whether they are being tendentious. If someone is being tendentious (such as repeating themselves without listening to what the others say, trying to hammer their point etc.) then they should be taken to ANI. If it is a content dispute, then it should be taken to DRN. The subject of this page is a relatively new one, and there aren't enough scholarly sources that can provide a balanced perspective. However, I did find a few sources and added them to the Further Reading list. It is not clear if any of the editors have looked at them. That would be the first step in my opinion. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
In each of those RfCs I posted some "ground rules" including
"Previous discussions have generated large numbers of comments, so no replies will be allowed in the support sections. This is the best way to make it clear who supports what. Please keep all threaded discussion in the threaded discussion section.:
and
"If you reply in the support sections your reply will be moved to the threaded discussion section with a "@Example:" added at the start of the comment."
This has worked out well so far, but I now have some editors who have chosen to post threaded replies in the support sections. I have posted polite requests on their talk pages that they voluntarily move the comments. My question is this: if I don't get anywhere with the request would I be out of line moving the comments to the threaded discussion section? I just want to do the right thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
IMO threaded comments are for discussing the RfC itself, and replies in line are legitimate when a !vote is based on an invalid premise. But what do I know. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what the purpose is in banning comments from within the !voting section. It's supposed to be a discussion, not a vote and moving the discussion to a less-prominent section doesn't seem to be a great way to do that. And as a side note, from reading this RFC, I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve. Are you debating whether countries with state atheism should say "atheism" in the infobox for their "religion" or are you debating whether countries like the United States that have no state religion at all should say "none"? --B (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The purpose is this: As I designed the RfC, everyone gets to make their point once in the !vote section, and to add as many comments as the wish in the threaded comments section. If we allow threaded comments in the !vote section, some people get to make their point twenty or thirty times, and the reader is faced with a wall of text consisting mostly of comments by the most aggressive editors.
My original question remains: how much leeway is the author of an RfC allowed when writing and enforcing ground rules for the RfC? I would note that not a single person challenged or questioned the ground rules, but instead a few editors simply ignored them, thus allowing their POV to have multiple comments from one editor in the !vote section while everyone who follows the rules only gets one. That hardly seems fair. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Just a curious non admin question, what policy, guideline, or even essay controls what ground rules an editor may place on a RFC? AlbinoFerret18:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd like an answer on that too - there may be a case for 'enforceable ground rules' in an RfC, but to my way of thinking, it shouldn't be a party to the dispute that is doing the 'enforcing' (or possibly even coming up with the rules). Even if done with the best of intentions, it runs the risk of appearing partisan, and making things worse rather than better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Excellent analysis, as usual. I think you are right about enforcement, but when I post an RfC I have to write the thing. Generally, as seen in these two RfCs, if someone objects to the wording and (as was the case here) they have a good point, the RfC ends up being modified. The problem I have with just ignoring the ground rules (as opposed to objecting to them) is that it puts those editors who follow the ground rules at a disadvantage. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think for "ground rules" to be enforceable, they need to be agreed to beforehand, not unilaterally suggested by the opener of the RFC. For example, if a previous RFC was derailed by lots of arguing that made it impossible to tell what the consensus was, then maybe it makes sense to try again, but with only simple !votes and no inline discussion. But at least one problem with jumping straight to the !vote with no inline discussion method is that "Bob" might have a !vote and the reasoning that he offers might be completely wrong and completely refuted by "Sally", but if "Sally" is confined to the less prominent discussion area, then nobody is going to know about it. --B (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
"My question is this: if I don't get anywhere with the request would I be out of line moving the comments to the threaded discussion section?" Depends, if they object (or revert) then no, I don't think there is anyway to enforce your process, as WP:RfC does not seem to give the proposer any such power (the proposer can only propose the format). I see why you want this and it may even be a good process but it's just not something people are required to accede to (under current policy). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I pulled off a restricted format a few years ago at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012, but I knew it would be needed and planned for it ahead of time, recruiting a team of three admins to be already on hand to run and close it, and the structure was open to review before it even started. That gave it some legitimacy and people pretty much did play by the rules. This is the sort of pre-planning one should do if making a major policy proposal. Not sure these particuar discussions require such elaborate, restricted structuring, but (warning, shameless plug ahead) I do have an essay on the subject at User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal that I recommendto anyone planning a big RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the status quo, where the requests of the RFC creator regarding special rules don't have any formal backing, but where they are generally obeyed, works quite well. If the rule makes sense, or even better is well justified, the community will often enforce the rule, and if its not, people will disregard it and we just end up with a regular RFC. Its also important to consider in each case whether enforcing the request/rule will cause more disruption than the violation did. In the instant case, a couple 1-2 reply deep threads in the !vote sections doesn't really cause much harm, whereas if it developed in to 20 reply deep debates over a comment, moving it to its own section would make a lot of sense. Monty84514:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Donovan delaney recently agreed to retract the legal threat at his sandbox on his user talk page. He can be now unblocked. --TL22 (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:MollyWhiteHNNNNGGGGGG made an unblock request. I wrote in support of Molly's unblock request. Then, User:Mike V blocked me and said I was a sockpuppet of Molly. The way I see it, I was blocked for supporting somebody else's unblock request. I requested unblock, and then User:Huon declined the rwquest, and also claimed I was a sockpuppet of Molly. I AM NOT A SOCKPUPPET OF User:MollyWhiteHNNNNGGGGGG. Those folks don't even hacve evidence that I am a sockpuppet. The way I see it, I supported somebody unpopular, and I get blocked for it. Now that my block is over, I suggest that both Huon and Mike V should have their admin privileges revoked. 70.128.116.200 (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
FYI, apparently the WP:File Upload Wizard is currently broken, due to a change in MediaWiki's Javascript support. See thread on WP:VP/T#File upload wizard broken for technical details. I hope to see this fixed soon; in the meantime, could admins please keep some extra eyes on the Upload logs, since editors are currently thrown back on the old unguided upload form and there are large numbers of files with missing or bad file descriptions coming through. Fut.Perf.☼05:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There has been edit-warring at Global Positioning System, and now admin User:TomStar81 has temporarily locked the article. It appears that progress is being made, and that the editors may be able to work out the content dispute, but admin attention is requesting just in case there are personal attacks or other disruptive behavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Organized Tag Team working in India-Pakistan related discussions and Edit War
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.
Those who were typing delete , they were mostly different editors, but those who were typing keep were almost the same in both cases. Is this plain co-incidence?
Once or twice may be a coincidence but their presence in so many discussions together can't be a plain co-incidence. Obviously they are acting as a tag team to push their POV. They will revert edits which doesn't suit their POV; it doesn't matter whether the editor had reliable sources or not. So many times they have removed edits which quoted from academic books. Due to their experience, they are getting away with it. They know when to stop and when to continue.
74.120.223.122 (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. You have claimed to have presented evidence of a group of editors "tag-teaming" towards a common goal. Of course, if true, this would mean there is an "opposing side" reverting such edits (otherwise there would be no edit war). Can you provide evidence of the accounts and IPs who are opposing this, together with evidence of why each of those accounts' edits are correct? Thank you. Black Kite (talk)19:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
This was also posted at ANI earlier today. Chillum removed it as an "innapropriate use of alternate account". As I looked through the links this looks like an "A WP:CONSENSUS version exists" "I don't agree with that consensus" so "any editor that does must be tag-teaming the article". Sadly, this seem to be the go-to argument in the last year or so. MarnetteD|Talk19:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It also seems that Marnette didn't see that Thomas W. is the one who first had a doubt. Reading all his comments in this post made me do a little investigation. And Black Kite, if i provide every difference, then it will take two pages. Once again Marnette this post is not against a consensus. I have no interest in those consensus which i was not part of. I wanted to prove the tag teaming part. This post is against tag teaming. Whatever the consensus is I don't care. Both of you must have seen, they are old editors. Yes, they have made big contribution. Even people with bigger contribution gets banned if they don't follow the rules. If there is some special privilege for Mar4d and TopGun to form a tag team with Faizan, I have no objection. Two of the editors are already topic banned for 6 months for POV pushing. Need i say more? Still you don't believe that they are tag teaming?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thanks all for your input. Opinions are certainly divided about whether this close was correct, but with apologies to Iryna Harpy and Samotny Wedrowiec, I've felt too much criticism from uninvolved sysops to let it stand. It's safest to self-revert and convert my close to a !vote. Please would someone else close the RfC.
Iryna Harpy, who has knowledge and sources and had a lot to say here but not in the RfC itself, is invited to add a comment to the RfC as well.—S MarshallT/C09:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
So, where's Poland? Is it in Eastern Europe or Central Europe? There was an RfC about this on Talk:Poland, which I closed today in favour of Eastern Europe (diff). Accordingly, I changed the article to say so. I've now been reverted, but the editor concerned has not explained himself on the article talk page or on mine.
Taking the most charitable interpretation of the revert, I'll assume that this editor wants to challenge my close but does not know how to do so. (I was half-expecting a challenge to my close in any case, because I went for a decision rather than a compromise.) Could I have an RfC close review please?—S MarshallT/C18:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that close, and decided not to say anything if users seemed to accept it, but now that users have clearly not accepted it, I'm afraid I have to say that I disagree with it. Sorry Stuart, no offense intended, I appreciate your effort and good intent, but to me, that close reads more like a supervote rather than an evaluation of the arguments. In terms of arguing users, we have for a Central/Eastern Europe compromise: Cordless Larry, Piotrus, OnlyInYourMind, OwenBlacker, and Yatzhek. For Eastern Europe we only have Samotny Wedrowiec (though he would also accept, and even proposed, a Central/Eastern compromise), and TheGnome, while for Central Europe: Xx236. Of course the actual arguments are more important than the count of supporters, but Samotny Wedrowiec, Piotrus, and Xx236 each presented multiple links with evidence for their sides. It's pretty clear that the consensus is for a Central/Eastern compromise. I know you wrote that you also took the opinions of other people discussing elsewhere on the page into account, but that hardly makes it more clear, since there we have Oliszydlowski, Boston9, and Student7 arguing against merely Eastern Europe, and in favor of a compromise of both. (And of course there's Powertranz, though they merely revert rather than argue, so it's hard to tell what their argument is, it's still pretty clear they don't agree.) A closer needs to be able to put their personal opinions aside; if they can't, or don't agree with the clear discussion consensus, and think it should be listed as in Eastern Europe, then they can say so, and participate in the discussion, but they shouldn't close it as a supervoter. --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of complicating matters further, I feel I should point out that this RfC appears not to have been properly carried out, and seems not to have served the purpose for which they are designed. The intention is to attract the opinions of outside contributors - and for that purpose, a template is provided, which ensures that the RfC is added to the appropriate lists. As it stands, I can see little evidence that the 'RfC' amounted to more than a rehashing of arguments by involved contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'd agree that there were no outside contributors. There was what seems to be a correct RfC template on the article until Legobot removed it on 26th May (diff); I closed it more than three weeks after the template expired. I think the usual amount of effort had been made to attract outside contributors but none had showed up.
GRuban's count is superficially accurate but I feel that to consider Yatzhek as "for a central/eastern europe compromise" is to disregard most of his posts on the talk page. Yatzhek hasn't been persuaded that Poland is in central/eastern europe, he's been exhausted into agreeing to it. I also don't agree with GRuban's apparent choice to disregard the IP posters.
Until I read the RfC I didn't think much about this subject, but now that I've read it (and the linked sources), I really do think Poland's in Eastern Europe. Its eastern boundary is the eastern edge of the European Union, and also the eastern edge of NATO. Its language is Slavic and its people are, with minority exceptions, Slavs. However, I'm happy to be overturned if there's a consensus that I'm wrong.—S MarshallT/C22:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) The 'location' of Poland has been an ongoing issue. Please see all of archive 2 (which includes an RM), and the majority of archive 3 (which includes an RfC) for the Galicia (Eastern Europe) article. Personally, I'm neutral as to whether Poland is described as a Central European country or not... but I've also been worn out by the proposal to define Poland as being in Central Europe from as many different fronts as possible. In fact, I've been so far put off the subject by what can only be described as FORUMSHOPPING raising its head every six months or so, that I've started to believe the hype. I agree with S Marshal's evaluation of the RfC. While I was involved with the Galician disambiguation issue as a matter of compromise, I truly see this as something that can only be neutrally assessed via a crossroads talk page where a far more diverse group of editors can !vote and discuss the COMMONNAME for the region in Europe English language sources agree on. To be honest, Eastern Europe has been treated as an IDONTLIKEIT assignation which simply isn't reflected in the Anglophone world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, the conflict over Galicia (Eastern Europe) of November 2013. Since 2003, the article has been titled Galicia (Central-Eastern Europe), Galicia (central Europe), Galicia (Central Europe), Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe), Galicia (East Central Europe), Galicia (East-Central Europe) and Galicia (Eastern and Central Europe). Let's just say that identifying countries in this entire geographic area has been a ongoing subject of dispute. LizRead!Talk!12:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
It sure looks like there were outside contributors. This RfC was OnlyInYourMind (talk·contribs)'s only contribution to Poland related topics, and OwenBlacker (talk·contribs) specifically wrote he was here from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service. Both were, of course, in favor of compromise. I strongly suspect that most other outside contributors would be too, because ... no offence to the participants ... to those without a dog in this fight, this likely just isn't worth arguing over. Please see Boris's view concisely expressed just below. Ahem.
As for S Marshall's arguments, they are just that arguments for the discussion. They are not conclusive (I suspect Austria or Canada or a dozen other countries could have issues with the concept that NATO borders defined Europe) or even appropriate, for the closing. The closer is supposed to evaluate the arguments made in the discussion, rather than decide based on their own views. Let's quote directly from Wikipedia:Closing discussions: "If the consensus of reasonable arguments is opposite to the closer's view, he or she is expected to decide according to the consensus." With all due respect, it reads as if you have done the opposite. --GRuban (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, certainly I have no strong feelings on the matter. From my perspective as someone brought up during the Cold War in Western Europe, I was taught that Poland was in Eastern Europe — but where that term was a transparent euphemism for the Warsaw Pact nations. Now I would describe anything between the Rhine and Poland's current eastern border as being Central Europe. But I'd understand either term and, as GRuban (talk·contribs) succinctly put it, I don't have a dog in this fight and don't really consider it worth arguing over ;o) Personally, I'm far more interested in a stable Wikipedia than whether the limits of Central or Eastern Europe are clearly defined. — OwenBlacker (Talk)14:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, but why at Poland's Eastern border? To me that seems like a fairly arbitrary place to draw the line. Culturally, large parts of Belarus and Ukraine have a lot more in common with Poland than Russia. If you believe Poland and countries similar to it are in Central Europe, then why exclude Belarus and Ukraine? Would you include Germany with that definition? Linguistically it makes no sense, since as a native Polish speaker I can understand chunks of spoken Ukrainian and Belarusian without any prior learning of these languages (after learning the Cyrillic script I can also tell that their orthography is very similar to Polish despite of the difference in alphabets), the same applies to spoken and written Slovak and Czech (though reading that is even easier due to the similar alphabets), but I understand practically no spoken or written German despite of learning that language at school for 3 years. Even the political definition of Central Europe (nowadays often used as another term for Eastern European countries that are now allied with the US rather than Russia) shouldn't really end at Poland's Eastern border but about 3/4 into Ukraine. --Samotny Wedrowiec (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Per GRuban, the closure statement does not reflect the consensus as presented, and should be reverted. The discussion does not seem to support the conclusion written by S Marshall. --Jayron3203:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Not meaning to be disrespectful, most of the 'discussion' took place well before the stub-end posturing as an RfC. The protracted discussions prior that which is found in the 'RfC' have, to my mind, been considered and well represented by S Marshall. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm allowed to post here (as someone who has been trying to change things in this matter for over a year now), but if I am then here it is: for me personally the matter is clear - Poland is an Eastern European country through and through. The arguments I have provided over time and the amount of sources I linked to are enough proof that most of the world seems to agree on that. Central Europe is a concept that largely overlaps with the idea of Western and Eastern Europe. Time and time again we hear of Austria as either Western or Central Europe, whilst Hungary, Slovakia and Czechia are most often referred to as Eastern or East-Central Europe/Central and Eastern Europe (different wording, but essentially same thing).
The concept of Central Europe isn't that new, but it has always been mostly about the central parts of the Austrian Empire/Austria-Hungary - a unique mix of cultures from the East and West. Calling Poland a Central European country is a much more recent idea and it seems ridiculous to me since present-day Poland has only very small parts of land that used to be under the control of the Austrians. Going by this, even countries geographically more to the East like Romania or Ukraine have more right to call themselves Central European. What disgusts me the most is that Eastern Europe, in the minds of many Eastern Europeans, is perceived as something objectively bad or something to be ashamed of. Pretty much half of the countries in Eastern Europe have a growing minority of loud people who argue that Eastern Europe starts to the East of their country. This results in some funny situations, where people from Poland, Latvia or Serbia argue that they are in Central or even Western Europe - both ideas are marginal at best. It's also annoying how people can't let go of the political connotations to Eastern Europe. The Eastern Bloc is gone, half of the Eastern European countries are now politically Western, but their cultures and history didn't change overnight in 1989 or 1991. And yes, whether they like it or not, influence of the Russian Empire and the USSR makes up a major part of the region's history.
Anyway, the only reason why I started arguing for a compromise is due to the fact that I became sick and tired of repeating myself. This turned into a frustration that has led me to take a break off Wikipedia by getting myself purposefully suspended. I came back (though I am still suspended on the Polish as I don't think it's worth appealing for the lifting of my suspension in that part of the online encyclopedia, because it is filled with POV-pushing and moderators abusing their powers) and realised that an inhuman amount of patience is required to see anything really change in the Poland article. So I just started taking it a bit less seriously and devoted less of my time to it. Eventually I started arguing for a compromise. But the same thing happens. I post countless arguments and sources supporting the change, yet all I get is lightning-fast reverts, vandalising of the talk page with personal attacks against me and so on. The only serious responses I was getting were from a very small number of mostly Polish Wikipedians who either replied by simply saying that they disagree, some of them occasionally posted a link to support their view.
So the main problem here is that, at the current moment in time, Wikipedia does not reflect the views of the world. It does not reflect how the UN or EU statistically group these countries, neither does it show what the majority of us actually think. The Poland article is strictly controlled by a group of Polish Wikipedians, some of them with connections to people with authority, who are destined to turn all things related to Poland on Wikipedia into the most biased travel guide available about a "country in the heart of Europe". One absolutely ridiculous example of this that I remember was when someone modified a quotation from Angela Merkel in the Poland article to say "Central and Eastern Europe" instead of "Eastern Europe" from the original source. Most of these people are unwilling to discuss anything related to this. They have had their way for so long and they probably will in the end also. The only reason why some progress actually started happening is due to users from the outside finally joining in. But it looks like it was very short-lived, because after the change we are now back to the same people repeatedly reverting any edits on the topic. In case anyone wasn't aware of this, Powertranz is the worst offender. He has been reverting these changes since February 2014 and he has NEVER taken part in the discussion about said changes. --Samotny Wedrowiec (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm on the verge of self-reverting and reopening the discussion here. Another independent person's input would be very welcome to me at this point.—S MarshallT/C19:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
The wall of text above, with nothing but blatant soapboxing indicative of the more extreme parts of this whole affair, is not really acceptable at ANI. We are a community of (mostly anonymous) editors some of whom might have delusions of grandeur inflated to the level of accredited worldly politicians. Please note, Wikipedia is here to make use of internal links where applicable. Look at articles Central Europe and Eastern Europe. Where do you find Poland? Poland is "not" in Central Europe. Poland is in the article (!) Central Europe. Like OwenBlacker said above, Eastern Europe "was a transparent euphemism for the Warsaw Pact nations" during the Cold War. A Warsaw Pact would be a good i-link to use in article Poland according to WP:MOS, but Warsaw Pact doesn't exist anymore. Soviet Union doesn't exist neither ... understandably, the article Ukraine for instance would not have been written well if it began with: "Ukraine is a former republic of the Soviet Union." Instead, a sovereign state is the relevant i-link to use in introducing Ukraine to the reader according to WP:RS. Poeticbenttalk13:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Saying that Eastern Europe is "a transparent euphemism for the Warsaw Pact nations" is an opinion, not fact. And if you really think that way and are from Eastern Europe, then you are stuck in the past. Many of the Eastern European nations are now in the EU and NATO. Furthermore, Eastern Europe has a much longer and richer history than just the Eastern Bloc. The "wall of text" you refer to also represents my point of view on this whole affair and more than anything else it represents my frustration. I've done my work, I've presented valid arguments and countless present-day sources that talk about Eastern Europe without making any mention of the Warsaw Pact. Feel free to look over one year's worth of content - me repeating the same things only to be completely ignored and endlessly reverted. But you didn't do so then, because you - just like most others who have continually opposed this change - are not interested in discussing any of this. You just show your disagreement and that's it, as if your position didn't need defending in an argument. Right now I just find it sickening that people like you are trying their best to completely wipe out any mention of Poland as an Eastern European country on Wikipedia. A process that has been happening for a long time now and it looks like you succeeded. Showing anything other than the marginal and fanatical point of view that Poland is "a country in the heart of Europe" is considered criminal on Wikipedia and an army of angry vandals is ready to fight you for attempting to show more than one perspective. --Samotny Wedrowiec (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Poeticbent, but I have to agree with Samotny Wedrowiec regarding this issue. I tried to provide some background in terms of the Galicia (Eastern Europe) RfCs and RMs where a disambiguation using contemporary geopolitical sources was quickly dismissed and the focus shifted to other options for the disambiguation outside of invoking a compass point location in Europe. Arguments there (including my own) were sympathetic to Poland as being defined as Central Europe in principle, as well as on many personal (read as 'subjective') understandings, but were clear on the matter of the Anglophone world still using Eastern Europe consistently in the media, etc. as the descriptor. Even the UN defines Poland as being part of Eastern Europe.
Whatever the situation, the RfC which just took place wasn't publicised in time, and only the usual editors involved in these regions had the opportunity to present their arguments. Even now, by having had S Marshall's close challenged, it's reintroduced executive decisions made by other editors (even if in good faith) to disregard the closing comments: here an editor has only just changed the categories and content based on the premise that their personal interpretation of the !vote matters more than the RfC's closing evaluation. This is disruptive to the Nth degree in light of the number of times it has occurred over the years.
If S Marshall's evaluation is sincerely deemed to be erroneous in his closure, a new RfC needs to be held at a salient talk page where far broader Anglophone, NPOV editor interest will be attracted. It simply isn't a PAGEDECIDE matter, therefore presenting arguments to Anglophone-savvy contributors is the first priority. If this isn't being allowed to be recognised as being closed for a reasonable length of time (that is, until there is new information or an obvious change in Anglophone depiction of the location of Poland), it's going to continue to encourage disruptive, BATTLEGROUND tactics in the same manner that it has for years. To my mind, such practices cannot be understood to be anything other than GAMING, pure and simple. IDONTLIKEIT and plenty of scope for FORUMSHOPPING is not an option that should be left open at the end of an RfC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Having read the above I'm no longer on the verge of self-reverting. My confidence in my close is largely restored. Please will someone independent consider taking appropriate and proportionate measures to enforce it?—S MarshallT/C19:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I find your closure hard to justify and would definitely recommend reverting it. Your own statements here in this thread make it sound rather like an admin "supervote" ("I really do think Poland's in Eastern Europe"). It is pretty clear that the closure doesn't reflect predominant opinion expressed during the RfC itself, and looking over both the preceding debate (and discounting all statements on both sides that were arguing on the basis of personal ideological conviction and self-identification rather than on the basis of sources) I certainly do not see any consensus in line with your closure either. Both sides were citing valid sources (and a lot of invalid ones mixed in with them), and neither side provided even an attempt at a convincing demonstration that the sources they cited were representative of a clearly predominant stance in the literature, beyond simply asserting this was the case. (I also note that most of the sources cited in support of "Eastern" came from contexts where "Central" wasn't even a possible alternative as part of the underlying classificatory scheme; i.e. sources that divide Europe only into "north", "south", "west" and "east" to begin with – I have yet to see a source which, while operating with a concept of "Central Europe", states that Poland is not part of it.) Fut.Perf.¤21:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise, you're overlooking the fact that local consensus is irrelevant where Wikipedia's policies override: in this instance that OR kicks in. We don't use Asian sources to define the Anglophone world's geographical locations for Southeast Asia or other regions of the world. There could well be a plethora of sources from Asian countries, politico-economic organisations, etc. referring to it as Southwest Asia, but English language Wikipedia represents the Anglosphere's perception. I'm not trying to play the blame game, or to deride other user's personal opinions based on their ethnicity, but those involved with that localised RfC were either European or Europeans living in the Anglosphere and presented POV rationales for a broad change probably not understood outside of European perceptions, and not educated in native English-speaking countries. Being able to speak English as a second language (even to the point of being a near-native speaker) does not qualify as second-nature perception of matters on this level.
Please read this, and this, and this which are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of contemporary native English-speaking nation-state accounts reflecting the Anglophone world's perceptions regarding what countries constitute Eastern Europe. While I fully appreciate that globalisation may be desirable in many areas, it is still merely an essay and changes of this nature are an example of where it bound to be problematic.
We know that Wikipedia's position is to reflect what mainstream secondary sources have to say on the matter, not to lead the way in OR in order to influence or create the position. If this is genuinely deemed to be something that needs to be examined, it needs to be examined in a venue that will attract those who don't deal primarily with Polish and surrounding articles. S Marshall's summary and decision in based on NPOV, not an admin 'supervote'.
What, then, is being proposed by the other sysops who've dismissed the current closure? A recount and change according to which arguments they find in favour of? The context is 'mainstream' and most prominent usage, not parsing research as to whether it's used to define the central latitude and longitude of 'Europe', or make determinations as to whether it's a hangover from the Soviet bloc era (well, it pre-dates it, actually). Even if it is a hangover, it's not one Wikipedia can throw over where it's the prominent understanding. We're not censored, so being politically correct isn't our job. We're not OR, so ignoring the prominent usage in favour of an academic debate over what is or isn't correct is shoehorning. In all honesty, I'm not convinced that there were grounds for an RfC in the first place. Leaving it open to, "Just bring us a few more compelling arguments and we'll change it" is encouraging more POV-pushing and edit warring. When it's considered to be other than Eastern Europe, we'll know about it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Arbitration enforcement, the limits of WP:INVOLVED, and (inevitably) Eric Corbett
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Urgh, this is a mess. My reading of consensus is that there is a leaning that GorillaWarfare's block was a bit out of process, given that Black Kite had already closed the WP:AE report as "no action taken". There is definitely no consensus here for a block; indeed, the results seem to show a slight consensus in favor of unblocking. A pure vote count shows a 60/40 split in favor of unblocking.
Wikipedia's blocking policy is designed such that the default state for editors is unblocked, and thus, given the lack of consensus for Eric Corbett's block, I am unblocking him now. It is unfair to let editors languish blocked because people cannot agree on the appropriate sanctions, thus leaving the most severe sanction implemented in effect.
I would like to encourage GorillaWarfare to pay more attention to consensus and the prior decisions of other admins at various noticeboards before taking unilateral action.
On a similar note, I would like to request that the accusations of "involved blocks" and "wheel warring" stop. GorillaWarfare did not wheel war, since a reversal of a previous admin action is not wheel warring. (The first potential "wheel warring" action would be my unblock, except that I am taking action based on the [lack of] consensus here.) Additionally, no evidence has been shown that she is involved with Eric in a non-admin case. Voting to ban in an arbitration motion is an admin (well, arbitrator) action.
I would like to advise Eric Corbett to take what some of the voters here have mentioned to heart and recognize that he is indeed topic-banned from WP:GGTF. The consensus seems to be that the potential violation was of insignificant magnitude, not that no violation occurred. Nothing good is coming of publicly complaining about the GGTF mailing list.
Finally, to the admin who said on IRC (in a burst of anger, not seriously) that he would like to give Eric a bath in hydroflouric acid, do not repeat anything of the kind, on wiki or IRC, or I will block you for a significant period of time. You know who you are. It is not appropriate, and is indeed way worse than someone bitching about a post on a mailing list and potentially violating a topic ban. If I see any more comments of a similar sort from anybody referring to anyone, I will hand out blocks without further warning.
I am not covering the other topics mentioned here; namely, whether or not to close the WP:AE board or whether to limit arbitrators from taking action on WP:AE. I would like to encourage the proposers to perhaps wait several days to a week for hot tempers to die down before re-proposing their proposals. Furthermore, such proposals belong on the idea lab village pump if you are trying to clarify your proposal or the policy village pump if you are ready to make your proposal. Additionally, such significant changes would need to be advertised on the centralized discussion template so more than just the AN/I crowd can weigh in.
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.
Last night I closed a WP:AE request about a topic ban breach by User:Eric Corbett. A number of editors had commented on it, all of whom seemed to agree that while it was a technical breach of the TB, it wasn't worth a serious sanction. I thus closed it in that way with no action. An hour later, arbitrator User:GorillaWarfare unilaterally blocked Eric for a month. There are a couple of issues here.
Enforcement. I closed the report as "no action", but GorillaWarfare overrode it. Had it been the other way round (i.e. I'd blocked Eric and she had unblocked him without discussing it with me, or here) then it would almost certainly have resulted in a desysop. It seems wrong that AE decisions can be overridden in one direction but not the other. Why even bother having AE if admins can unilaterally ignore the discussion and the closing of them?
Involvement. GorillaWarfare was one of the arbs that voted for Eric's topic ban in the first place. Whilst that would not normally meet any definition of involvement, she was also quite vocal in wanting Eric completely site-banned during that case (here is the PD page). I'm ... uneasy that it was GW who did the blocking. As I said on her talkpage, she should undo the block, and if another admin wants to re-block, that's their prerogative (but again, the above issue still applies).
AE blocks can be undone by a discussion here. Whether that is the outcome or not, I think the above issues need to be discussed. Black Kite (talk)10:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock as out of process and against consensus. The AE request was filed at 21:45 UTC and Eric was blocked just before 04:00 UTC, during which time I was either reading articles or (mostly) asleep. A little over six hours is far too short a time to gain an accurate consensus; indeed, when I have entertained unblock proposals when coming across cases on CAT:UNBLOCK I have generally allowed 7 days as a suitable timeframe. I was very close to unblocking Eric myself, but I think a discussion here is a good idea - though one I fear will descend quickly into a mud slinging drama-fest :-( Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
AE is not based on developing a new consensus each time. As long as there was a violation of an arbitration sanction, an administrator can enforce the sanction without any discussion. The discussion happened when the arbitration case is decided, and after that the case itself provides the consensus behind any enforcement actions. 2601:5C5:4000:B14F:90D1:11E:D24C:CBF7 (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock - After the AE discussion, this unilateral action looked to be a second bite of the apple. This is inconsistent with our goals and policy. If we are to ignore consensus, then why bother having AE. I'm also bothered by GW's comments about how there was only one admin among participants, which seemed to be a disrespectful jab at non-admin, indicating their input is less important than those of us with the bit. If it wasn't an Arb block, I would have simply unblocked him myself without asking. Dennis Brown - 2¢11:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
So a little over six hours is far too short a time to gain an accurate consensus with which you disagree, but fine for one with which you agree? Hal peridol (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient. If her real concern was that the comments were simply off topic, she wouldn't have mentioned who had admin bits and who didn't, they aren't related. That might be her response, but it doesn't explain it. The words speak for themselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢11:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I can see where your coming from and I certainly agree that your entitled to your opinion even though I don't see it that way. I was mostly posting it so others could easily find the response to the statement that had already been given. Sufficient or not I will let individuals decide. Amortias (T)(C) 11:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block Everytime Eric makes a comment he knows is likely to lead to a block he tends to be blocked. There is a surge of support for his unblocking. Eric returns continues to make comments that he is prohibited from making and ends up blocked. If you've been told dont do something and you carry on doing it the blame lies firmly with the person making the comments. My understanding of the process is that any uninvolved administrator can block with regards to arbitration sanctions they dont need to go via AE (please point me in the direction of something that says otherwise if it exists). Amortias (T)(C) 11:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is my point really. What is the function of AE if a consensus discussion can be overridden like this? Wikipedia functions on consensus, this just seems ... I don't know, out of place. If I close an AfD discussion as "Keep", an admin can't come along an hour later and delete the article anyway. This seems analogous. Black Kite (talk)11:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Block Eric was placed on a discretionary sanction and understood what it was all about, he chose to violate that sanction not once, but repeatedly, and he's been repeatedly blocked for it. In fact, on his latest post he challenged an admin to block him, which as far as I'm concerned (and I'm also under a discretionary sanction, myself) is just asking for a block. I'd consider GorillaWarfare's actions to be more along the lines of WP:IAR. KoshVorlonRassekali ternii i mlechnye puti11:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock. Clear consensus not to block at the enforcement page. Besides it is, as others have already said, a minor civilly-worded statement on his own talk page that supports treating genders equally. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block per KoshVorlon. This is a sensible block given it related to a clear violation of editing restrictions. The notion that blocks should only be implemented when there's a consensus which is being advanced above is nonsense, especially in the circumstances here (including those which Amortias notes). The "involvement" section of Black Kite's post above is also dubious at best given that GW made those comments in her official roles. Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Note that she specifically says "Please note that this is not an arbitrator action. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)" immediately below the block template. Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock per Black Kite and Ritchie333. Arbs blocking "along the lines of WP:IAR" should not be encouraged. Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block per KoshVorlon and Amortias. To add: the AE case was closed far earlier than would have been closed by anyone without as many supporters of Eric. To suggest that Gorilla's block is improper is to suggest that anyone wanting to avoid sanction can do so by simply having a friendly admin quickly close the relevant AE. Kevin Gorman (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock per Black Kite, Ritchie333 and Dennis Brown. A pointless over-reaction on the part of GW, who should be considering their position. Nortonius (talk) 11:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock per Amortias. Obviously treating Eric like a child isn't working. Eric does not appear to be a threat to anyone nor is commentary on his own talk page disruptive; if he's saying things that are ill-informed - which I think he is - simply challenge him. Alakzi (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Block Clearly a breach and given his history of ignoring sanctions imposed on him, 1 month is actually less than he deserves. HOWEVER - given that it is impossible for any policy-following admin to block Eric due to the administrator community refusing to pay any attention to the civility pillar and relevant policies - I would like to propose all Eric Corbett reports are forwarded straight to arbcom in future. No AE. No community discussion at the drama boards. Let them sort it out - although judging by previous cases they dont particularly want to uphold community standards regarding him either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, 6 hours is apparently not enough time to block, but it is enough time to declare one of the most long-term violators of community standards to be given ANOTHER slap on the wrist? Meh double standards somewhat there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock – per Rictchie333. GorillaWarfare stuck two fingers up at the consensus which was quickly forming at AE and allowed her own personal prejudices to queer her decision to either block or unblock. I'm still waiting, incidentally, for her to respond with regards to her rational when it came to ignoring this consensus. But it appears she ignores such discussions when things get a bit tough! CassiantoTalk11:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock - I was determined to speak up at AE (which I normally try to avoid: about the pettiness of reporting someone for a comment on his own talk, a behaviour which we should not support by even reacting to it) and found this block which doesn't improve Wikipedia. Read my comments elsewhere, including a woman-to-woman talk to GorillaWarfare. - If I was in her position, I would unblock myself without waiting for more display of no consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment and probably unpopular opinion by totally uninvolved party: I have no opinion on the block (although it is pretty long, and that seems excessive). But I agree with this posted above: Everytime Eric makes a comment he knows is likely to lead to a block he tends to be blocked. There is a surge of support for his unblocking. Eric returns continues to make comments that he is prohibited from making and ends up blocked. If you've been told dont do something and you carry on doing it the blame lies firmly with the person making the comments. And baiting admins by saying stuff like "Callanecc can block me again for as long as he likes, for whatever reason takes his fancy", whilst apparently violating his topic ban, and then declaring he is forever done with Wikipedia when something of that nature actually occurs, is disruptive to the encyclopedia because it creates drama. To quote Floquenbeam (not sure if he meant it like I mean it): "What if they gave a drama and nobody came?" What if Eric served out his blocks without any protests from an army of fans (even if he was in the middle of an FAR)? Then he wouldn't feed on the drama/brinksmanship/defiance and create more of it. Softlavender (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately I know what the comment meant to me. If it means something else to someone else I seek clarification as I have done in my previous comment. I certainly don't expect to be referred to as pretending to be stupid for seeking clarification on someones opinion of something to allow me to better understand their opinion and therefore come to a more balanced understanding of the matter. If you'd be so kind as to strike that remark I would be grateful. Amortias (T)(C) 12:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Seen and understood. If they were referring to someones contributions or opinions being less worhtwhile than someones because they were a fan of something/one I can see where thats uncivil. I Just didnt see taht comment being made in the above statement, its possible thats just how I read into it. On a side note I'm going to suggest we hat this bit as its getting further and further off topic and this page will soon be TLDR without our help. Amortias (T)(C) 12:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I have a slightly different view, which is going one stage back. What if Eric said "I hate Jimbo, arbcom smells, all admins look at me funny yada yada" and everyone ignored it? Indeed, does our no personal attacks policy not say "Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it"? Why don't we go back to square one with this and give that a go? I appreciate I am taking this personally, but that's because the last time this happened, Eric was in mid-review of Snake Pass and doing a good copyedit. Why should my attempts to improve the encyclopedia suffer? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Ritchie, it wasn't a personal attack, it was daring admins to block him, while doing something blockworthy -- it was admin-baiting. And note that I covered the FAR issue in my comment. It is exactly because Eric and others feel he is indispensable that he feels he can get away with violating sanctions without getting blocked -- and he appears to feed off the thrill of the adulation, the feeling of indispensability, and the irrepressible urge to violate restrictions. That is just my observation from observing this time and again. I have no dog in this fight -- I have never worked with Eric (positive or negative) or had an FAR or anything. What if Eric's supporters, instead of protesting his blocks, urged him to be cautious and focus on building an encyclopedia rather than on defying admins/restrictions, even (especially!) if he is blocked in the middle of an FAR? Anytime someone is held up as potentially unblockable and outside the rules, that is bad for the encyclopedia. Softlavender (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
A problem with your analysis, Softlavender, if I may, is that none of us is a mind reader, although, FWIW, I think you misjudge Eric Corbett's feeding habits. And, I'm pretty sure that he'd be unhesitatingly "uncivil" to anyone, "supporter" (I think something like "like-minded individual" would be better) or otherwise, who suggested he moderate his behaviour. My impression is that he regards this sort of dramah as the politics of the playground, and imposes his own rules, to which he strictly adheres come what may; whereas his contributions to the encyclopedia speak for themselves. I really dread the idea of WP becoming an anodyne province of the mediocre. Nortonius (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hear, hear, to both Cassianto and Ritchie333: dismissing the opinions of others as those of "fans" et al. is something that I find really offensive, yet people get away with it all the time. It's so inane and demeaning, besides being so sadly predictable. And I do have improvements to the encyclopedia in mind, for which I would ordinarily turn to Eric Corbett as a GA-meister. Nortonius (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Appropriate block. Remember: the arbitration enforcement is not based on forming a consensus for each action. As long as there was an unambiguous violation of an arbitration decision, any administrator can enforce the appropriate sanction, even if a few other admins have said they will not enforce it. In this way, AE simply enforces decisions that were already made by the arbitration committee. In this case, the block seems to be well within the terms of the discretionary sanction, as EC acknowledged when he made the recent posts. Most of the comments in the closed AE thread were irrelevant to the process of enforcing an arbitration sanction. 2601:5C5:4000:B14F:90D1:11E:D24C:CBF7 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I have not commented as any other user on this thread, or elsewhere, about this block. But it is somewhat sad to see supposedly experienced editors who don't understand how AE works, so I thought I would comment. This will be it for me, anyway - I'm out. 2601:5C5:4000:B14F:90D1:11E:D24C:CBF7 (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Questions: As this has been opened on the topic of WP:INVOLVED, let's discuss that. Do you, User:Black Kite, User:Ritchie333, User:Dennis Brown consider yourself WP:Invovled with respect to User:Eric Corbett? If not, how are you differently situated than User:Gorrilla Warfare - note she was acting in an administrative capacity in arbitration. Under Discretionary Sanctions, does or does not Gorrilla Warfare have discretion? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(e/c)Do you agree that Gorilla Warfare was acting in an administrative capacity as an arbitrator in the arbitration statements that are being here used against her? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe it is permitted for any admin to lift a block that is imposed as part restrictions set by an arbitration case or a complaint brought before AE. The instructions there say Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee. The only way that Eric's block can be lifted is by action of the arbitration committee itself or a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard which is what is going on here. LizRead!Talk!12:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It was also not permitted under that ruling to unilaterally overturn (explicitly or in substance) Black Kite's administrative action of closing that AE discussion with the summary "General consensus amongst admins and others appears to be that there is no issue to pursue here." --Noren (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I think Black Kite was mistaken when that was written. If you look at the "Result concerning Eric Corbett" section you will see it is empty. It should not have been closed prior to a discussion as to if their was a violation. Chillum02:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This does not address the point, as the 2010 Arbcom ruling under discussion does not provide an exception to allow a second administrator to act to take unilateral action to overturn the first administrator's decision even if that first action was wrong or a mistake. (Even if the mistake is that the first action isn't formatted in the way you prefer, if that's really what your objection is about...) Two wrongs do not make a right.--Noren (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
On the subject of involved, I would suggest that an admin who commented on the side of EC during the GGTF case here might not have clean hands closing an AE request concerning EC at very short notice before other admins have discussed whether a TB violation has taken place. This defense of EC appears not to be an isolated case either... here & here. GWs block looks like a good one to me. SpartazHumbug!12:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Except I'm not really talking about the block itself (there is no doubt that, technically, it was a violation of Eric's TB), more how it was made. Meanwhile as far as the AE goes, I was simply closing per consensus in the discussion, something which doesn't always happen at AE. If I'd simply said "no violation" with no discussion then you would certainly have a point. Black Kite (talk)12:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
If you acknowledge a tban violation, why did you not block? These are not discretionary sanctions. It's a topic ban. When intentional unambiguous violations occur, there is no room for admin discretion. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 12:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
If there was no room for admin discretion, we have have a bot met out blocks. There is always room for discretion, after considering the totality of the circumstances and hearing from fellow editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢12:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
So what we have is an arguably involved admin deciding not to enforce a clear tb vio in the face of no consensus on this complaining about another admin enforcing a clear tb vio. Hmmm.... SpartazHumbug!12:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What we have is incredibly bad judgement. Reopening the AE discussion would have been fine, since really it wasn't open long enough. Whether GW considers herself involved or not, she had to be aware that many people do after her calls to ban Eric, so GW had to know this would spark a controversy, so GW acted knowing it would produce a drama-fest. Reopening the AE would not have, and the regular process could have continued. Eric is no angel, trust that I know this, but you can't say "he is no exception to the rules" while you are treating him differently than any other AE participant and having someone who is on the record as wanting him banned (and has the power) acting unilaterally. My problem is with the process here. I've yet to comment on the merits. Dennis Brown - 2¢12:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(e/c)User:Dennis Brown What do you mean you have not commented on the merits? Are your retracting your ivote above because you are involved? Are you showing bad judgement here? Do you think you are applying a double standard to GW? By your "many people do" standard are you involved? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Whether I'm involved or not is irrelevant as I haven't used the tools in this case. This isn't about me. This thread is just a little side show that doesn't address anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This isn't about whether the block was deserved or not, it was whether proper process was followed, so again, involved is meaningless. I will trust the editor that closes this to make their own determination. So again, this thread is distracting from the real issue, and attempt to discredit those that disagree with you, ie: a fancy version of ad hominem. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No. There is no ad hominem. And your claim that it is entirely unsupported. You are arguing she is involved, and it appears by your standard you're involved. That's not ad hominem, that's addressing the logic of your argument. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
ad ho·mi·nem - (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. You are saying the three of us shouldn't have a say because you think we are involved (even though we haven't used our tools), and your line of questioning doesn't address the merits of our arguments just our "status". THAT is the very definition of ad hominem, trying to disqualify our comments because of your idea of who we are, not what we say. Now shoo fly. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No. Entirely incorrect. The questions are for the purpose of analyzing your argument that she is involved. Involvement is the stated reason this was opened isn't it? It's also the standard for analysing overturn !votes. Did you just refer to me as a fly? Really? What was that talk about respect, you gave in your Overturn comment? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, and nowhere am I denying that I supported sitebanning Eric in that case—it was the "calls to ban" bit that made me sound a little more torches-and-pitchforks than I was. But your concern here would imply that you feel that arbitrators may not act as administrators in situations where they've been active in a related arbitration case, which historically has not been the case. GorillaWarfare(talk)20:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Under all circumstances, an Arb wants to not enforce something they enacted, to stay "uninvolved" as possible, particularly when it is isn't something that requires instant action. There are other admin to do that. In this case, if you know (and you should) that many people see you as "involved" when it comes to Eric, based on the entire GGTF case, the way you voted, and your obvious opinions on his perceptions. The appearance of being involved is no less important than being involved. Your better move would have been to simply reopen the AE discussion, something that no one could really have argued against considering how short it ran. It can be argued that closing an AE with no action is an admin action simply because you MUST have the admin bit to do it, non-admin can't do this. Your blocking after another admin closed without action does look like wheel warring. More importantly, there was no reason you HAD to act when you did, and your actions are what caused all this drama. Not Eric's actions, yours. If another admin had blocked him in AE, this would have stayed on Eric's talk page. I can't imagine you didn't know your actions would start this fire, and why you would want to. Please note, no where have I argued against blocking, only against your doing so while arguably involved and out of process. Dennis Brown - 2¢23:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Eh? There was a very clear consensus not to block - not "no consensus". And I think you're deliberately misrepresenting this now. The more general questions I'm asking at the top of this section really do need answers, whether Eric's blocked, unblocked or fired into space on a big rocket. Black Kite (talk)13:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block as filer of the AE. It was closed prematurely after only being commented on by people who follow Corbett's talk page and closed by an admin who has made clear his strong support of Corbett. There was an unambiguous breach of topic ban with a direct taunt to a previous blocking admin. All comments if the AE were either about me, about how wonderful Corbett is, out how stupid the tban is. None addressed the actual behavior. Performing arbcom duties and voting does not preclude any arb from performing admin duties and enforcing a tban that by definition was placed with majority support. The suggestion is absurd. The idea that any admin, regardless of their feelings for an individual user, would be either unwilling to fulfill their obligations to enact sanctions in the face of unambiguous violations or that they wish to subvert the arbitration means they are not fit to be an admin. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 12:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@MONGO: I can't read all the comments on my phone at the moment but does anybody dispute that EC violated his topic ban? That's what I'm saying is unambiguous. And intentional to boot. People seem to be arguing the merit of the tban, the effect on the project, the past behaviors of EC, the appropriateness of the block, etc. But in the end, the edit was an intentional violation. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 21:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
If there is a place full I grey areas, that place is Wikipedia. I am troubled by this entire sequence of events and am having difficulty seeing any innocent parties.--MONGO23:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir:, nobody disputes EC willingly and clearly violated his topic ban. The dispute is how it was handled. Look at this mess. Why? Why are you even watching EC's talkpage? There was no disruption and now there's this over a comment that in no way, shape or form was going have any effect on any editor here. For what? I think MONGO said it best below. Police don't shoot people for littering. It's a disproportionate response. Isn't the end game trying to reduce disruption? Nobody was edit warring or otherwise interfering with editing. Nobody was disrupting anything and now we have this shitstorm of a thread, which is succeeding in doing nothing more than creating more conflict, and a very real chance somebody could take GW to ArbCom. Another disproportionate response. But here we are. Capeo (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Capeo:MONGO's analogy is off. This is comparable to probation. EC already messed up, when before a group of judges, an was sentenced. Instead of being thrown in prison site banned, he was released on probation with the condition that he not do anything related to what got him in trouble. The most minor probation violation lands you in hot water. Your 5th violation lands you back in jail. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 03:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Okay, let's use your analogy. This is akin to violating your probation by being caught littering then. Technically a violation, yes, but I think most agree that going to jail for it is disproportionate. To me the spirit of a T-ban is to cease disruption despite the letter of the law. You see this regularly at ANI where violations are let slide because there was no actual disruption caused. Hence my point above. There was no disruption and now we have this and now GW is at ArbCom and now there's far more acrimony between editors and admins than the day before. There's a reason police turn a blind eye to minor infractions. It's literally not worth the effort of enforcement. If EC posted his comment at the GGTF I'd say through the book at him. That would be willfully trying to cause disruption. As it was that single comment wasn't going anywhere and I highly doubt any ensuing conversation would have effected anything beyond his talk page. So the question becomes is following the letter of the law worth it when it's likely only to serve in making things worse? I personally don't think so but I do understand your view as well. I'm sure you knew that AE report would cause some argument as everything stemming from the GGTF case does but there's no way you could have seen all this coming from it. Capeo (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment I'm puzzled by the comments about acting in opposition to the consensus expressed by editors who offered statements in this complaint. AE doesn't operate by consensus, not by the consensus of the editors and not by consensus of admins. A single admin can choose to block when other admins state that a block is unwarranted. I agree that consensus is preferable but the consensus model is not how AE has operated in the time I've been active on Wikipedia. A solitary admin can choose to block an editor or close a case regardless of editors' opinions. LizRead!Talk!12:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Liz: I believe you're a bit off about this, as AE does work by consensus, but only the consensus of the admins participating in the "uninvolved admin" section. Of course, their views can be informed and shaped by the comments of other editors in the section above, and you're right in that it's never been about finding a consensus there, only about the views of the uninvolved admins. It is, after all, not a discussion board, but an enforcement board, which is why those who can actually perform the enforcement get to decide whether an ArbCom decision has been violated or not. You and I, the rank-and-file editors, and involved admins get to be the peanut gallery, but that's about it. BMK (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, a "solitary admin" deemed it not worth blocking, then another "solitary admin" who has a known angst deemed that it was worth blocking. Can't have it both ways, especially with first-mover advantage in play. Go take a look at GW's RfA: it makes interesting reading. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Unblock per Black Kite, Ritchie333 and Dennis Brown - He should never have been blocked in the first place, What's the point of Arbcom if admins can just do what the fuck they like regardless of the comments/consensus?, As I said on Erics TP - If this isn't a punitive block then I honestly don't know what is!. –Davey2010Talk12:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Unblock, no harm in the comments, the only harm being done is unilateral action by an Arb that made it clear in the first case her first preference was to ban EC. I can certainly point to several examples of several questionable actions she has done. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What Black Kite is saying is that he believes he has a better understanding of ArbCom's intent than one of the active arbitrators on the case. I think it is a very bad idea to unblock, and a perfectly reasonable idea to ask on the AE page for clarification of the rationale, with input from other arbs. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't put words into my mouth please Guy. I'm actually doing the same as you, asking for clarification on how this should work. There seems to be no consistency. Black Kite (talk)13:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock I think it's clear that this isn't going to work and ends up causing extra time wasting and hostility. If there's disagreement within arb, what chance to the rest of us have? When the ruling is daft to begin with it's unlikely to do anybody any favours in blocking Eric for the sake of it.? Dr. Blofeld13:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Everyone keeps mentioning how terrible the ruling was but no one has appealed the tban or addressed it on AE. But the tban exists and you can't just ignore it because you dislike it. It was passed by a majority so it clearly wasn't terrible to everyone. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 13:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
You see, it is this obsession with due process that leads to so many problems here. We're building an encyclopaedia, not some sort of fascist state. Common sense has a role to play in enforcement, not merely strict application of the "law". Blimey, I've even seen common sense applied for 3RR, which *is* supposedly a bright-line rule. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
My concern, as an administrator (if that needs to be pointed out), is that the AE request was closed as no action and then a block was made. As mentioned earlier, if this had happened the other way around - the AE request closed recommending a block and another admin came around and unblocked - the unblocking admin would be desysopped for wheel warring. Why does it only work one way? Whether or not I as an administrator agree with whether a block should have been made should not matter if the AE request has already been closed, i.e., another administrator has taken an admin action (closing the request) in relation to that particular issue. If closing an AE request as no action is NOT considered an admin action - and thus shouldn't be overturned as wheel warring - then AE is simply a venue to wait for the one, possibly the only, admin who thinks it is block worthy - regardless of consensus - to come around and make a block. That disturbs me greatly. We're essentially allowing the most easily offended, the one who may have a grudge, the one who does not not the backstory (take your pick, depending on the request) to take action. Regardless of the outcome of this particular incident, we need to decide if this is what is best for the project, and the AE process. I do not think it is. Karanacs (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, one way this could have been avoided is if there was an actual discussion at the underlying AE. There was no actual discussion. There were statements made but the very section for actual discussion is and was left entirely blank. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There have been cases where there WAS discussion, where consensus was that there should be no action, and then another admin came along and blocked. AE request closed, we're done, no one can overturn the block. The key point is that an administrator made a decision. That decision was overturned. How is that not wheel warring? Karanacs (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
For as long as I have been here, an "administrative action" means using the tools. So wheel warring is using the tools to overrule someone else's use of tools without discussion. You might call this a supervote if you like, but I wouldn't support characterizing this as wheel warring. Resolute14:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Resolute, "admin action" in my reading morphed from "use of tools" to including stuff like discussion closures at least 5 years ago. You seem to be saying that if an admin closes a contested AfD as "keep" (no use of tools), another admin can come along afterwards and unilaterally delete the article without it being a tool misuse. I don't think it works that way. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's odd, I grant you that an administrator "who may be involved" closes without any discussion and then complains about the other for "involvement" when they did not agree that there was an actual discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Closing an WP:AE request can only be done by an admin, and thus is essentially a use of a person's administrative rights, even though there is no actual tool use. What I have not seen is a clear statement from @GorillaWarfare: as to whether she was aware of the AE close prior to making the block. Obviously must trust GorillaWarfare's answer, but I think it is incredibly important to the procedural posture of this case, and has not been clearly stated anywhere. If GorillaWarfare did not know of the close, then its just a question of whether we support the block, and not a serious breach of protocol. Monty84514:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Her statement here [68]seems to indicate that she was aware of the discussion but chose to block outside of it, as she believed the participation was low quality and had too few admin, which is an odd thing to say in itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree your reading is the most likely, but I think there is enough room in the language that it could be a post-hock analysis to justify not undoing it as a result of being informed. As its in my view an important question, I'd rather see a clear statement than read into that one. Monty84515:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block. Yes, Eric has numerous enablers that will defend him at every turn for every action in an attempt to lock any community forum into paralysis. Even despite that, the whole "this is so trivial, it was on his talk page, etc., etc." excuses might have some merit if not for the fact that this is already thefifth time he's breached his sanctions. To be perfectly blunt, almost anyone else breaching arbitration sanctions with such frequency would be looking at a site ban at this point. Resolute14:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block. Eric intentionally violated the arbitration sanctions to see if another block would ensue, and it did. Arbitration sanctions do not require community consensus. Sitting on the arbitration committee that enacted the restriction does not make the blocking admin involved. Recall please that previous attempts to rein in Eric's inappropriate behavior have led to highly disruptive wheel wars and an incredible level of disruption. It has to stop, for the good of the wiki. I realize that means we could lose Eric Corbett as an editor. But his actions have to have consequences, so sorry -- Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my opinion. I think it's the latest in a series of intentional disruptive breaches of his restrictions. I think the block should stand. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
And you're perfectly entitled to it, thanks for the response. The trouble is, to my mind, that the idea of "intentional disruptive breaches" depends on a lot of assumptions about EC's motivations, and indeed his character.[69] Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
More comments (not directed at you specifically, I just want to keep all my remarks in one place): I don't usually agree with Sandstein, but I agree with what he said here; I also agree with Jytdog's remarks here. To sum up my further thoughts: Black Kite's close was based purely on a head count, and none of the people commented on whether or not a violation had actually occurred (it had). Eric is a popular guy, and if we base blocks purely on his popularity, he becomes an unblockable, a different higher class of editor, and can therefore do whatever he pleases. That's been the status quo for many years, and that's what needs to change. (2) The user himself must appeal the block, and that has not been done. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Procedural note As far as I'm aware, arbitration enforcement blocks may only be appealed by the blocked party (as per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications, which is the appeal process noted in the block template GW used: "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction."). Eric Corbett has not expressed the desire to appeal this sanction - in fact, has indicated that he very much will not appeal it and is done with all of this - which would mean that this entire conversation is moot unless and until he does. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In what sense? BK noted that "AE blocks can be undone by a discussion here," which is an accurate statement except for missing the part where the appeal apparently has to be initiated by the person under sanction. AE/DS policy is ridiculously complex, so it's not surprising that it would take a couple people to piece together exactly how this all works (and honestly, I won't be shocked if someone else is like "Yes but this completely separate policy page says something that clearly indicates you're misunderstanding this, ya dumb sandwich"). If BK simply wants the AE workflow/closure processes reviewed - as opposed to his appealing the AE block of someone else - that would be one thing, though it would make more sense to me to ask for an Arbcom clarification rather than just getting people to support/oppose "process approved/disapproved" on AN. But people here are voting on lifting a block BK doesn't have the standing to appeal. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In the sense that you just explained, Fluffernutter, thank you! Yes it's all very complex and I confess that I don't plan to start studying it now. But as I understand it people here aren't voting on an appeal of the block, but on whether it's a valid or, perhaps more importantly, useful and appropriate block in the first place. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock, per my comment here. Eric was unilaterally blocked by an admin who has been quite involved with this topic. The AE case should be reopened and left open until multiple uninvolved admins formally review the case. The generally disorderly mob that is ANI is not fit to this very borderline issue, in my opinion. --Biblioworm14:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock: Echoing Ritchie333 way up the page and Biblioworm in the comment just above mine. I agree with the suggestion of a formal review of this unruly action. Fylbecatuloustalk15:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Block was forbidden - Black Kite took an administrative action pursuant to an active arbitration remedy, closing the discussion at AE as no result. Quoting from the relevant rule, "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy". By the rules set out by the full Arbcom in 2010, GorillaWarfare was prohibited from overturning the substance of Black Kite's administrative action unilaterally. --Noren (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
No real comment on the block/unblock other than to say being on ARBCOM and having voted on a case involving a use would seem to fall under "purely in an administrative role" and thus INVOLVED does not apply IMO. I would also say that I'd suggest when you have someone with as many supporters as Eric has, it would be wise to leave things open for a bit longer as his supporters are likely the ones that will show up in the first 6 hours as they will see this the soonest. All that said, BK closed the discussion per the discussion and I don't think it was wise of GW to block afterwards. No one looks real good here IMO. So, as with most things that touch on EC and our enforcement, the outcome is clusterfuck. Hobit (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock. Aside from all other considerations simply on procedural grounds. The premise of the block was AE. Another admin had already made a AE determination on the incident in closing without action. GW blocking after that point is no different then her unblocking if a different admin had applied a block first. That would have been an instant loss of the bit. That shouldn't happen here, as that's extreme, but she should perform the unblock herself. As far as the other considerations? The idea that discretion should not be applied to AE is so ridiculous as to be laughable. Why not make a bot that looks for particular words posted by a user and blocks automatically? Everyday at AE users are let off the hook though they technically violated some ruling. Admins are, hopefully, here to minimize disruption through judicious application of common sense. There was no disruption until this block was performed. A user posted an opinion on their talk page, an undoubted technical violation, that would have amounted to nothing if people weren't constantly hawking his page for anything to pounce on. The situation was diffused then an hour later blown up into this debacle. For what purpose? To make a point? To follow the letter of the law regardless of result? Or worse the continuation of a grudge? Either way the result is just increased acrimony and less content. A result anyone could have foreseen and avoided if that was their ultimate goal. Capeo (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2015
Support unblock. (procedural). The block was perfectly apt and appropriate in so far as the clear and unambiguous AE infringement is concerned. The discussion never mentioned the AE and was rapidly closed while it was still being claimed that it was simply a case of hounding Corbett, which is another topic. I am only voting to unblock because there is sufficient argument to suggest that GorillaWarfare may have acted in good faith but out of process. And that's also another topic. And then we will know for the next time a user steps out of line in a similar situation. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
weakly support block If you are going to invalidate GW for being involved, you should also invalidate the AE "consensus" for being comprised of Eric's known supporters (and mostly non-admins). Is the block overly severe? maybe, but its his Nth violation. If you yell "Pig" at the cops, while intentionally jaywalking in front of their car, you should expect a ticket, even though jaywalking might not be a big deal. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Punitive block by an ax(e)-grinding administrator. Sorry Gorilla, but this has gone too far. Yes, the letter of the law blah blah, we've heard all that before. Next up, Eric's comment on what even I, a card-carrrying anti-essentialist yet still French-inflected feminist consider to be hooey, is driving all new editors away. Yes, those "long-suffering Gender Gap list members" must have been totally butt-hurt when they saw Eric's comment. (Seriously, we give grants for that kind of stuff? Can I get one? I got an article coming out on teaching a text about a woman who defeats not one but two patriarchies--how much is that worth?) I'm tempted to unblock him and then y'all can simply have my bit (I think GW's bit should be yanked), which is hardly a badge of honor anyway, but that would only contribute to the shit storm, and I do not wish to let the blocking admin and her supporters have yet another opportunity to sit back, popcorn and all, and say, "see? I told you!" Congratulations. I'll check back in later, like in a week or so, to see if there's any article writers left. Ritchie, it's up to you, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This is one of the most patronising things I've ever read. If that's how you intend to behave, I can't speak for the IEG programme on grants, but as an individual I'll give you $50 and a coupon to retire. Ironholds (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Drmies: we're friends, but Eric deliberately flouted the edit restrictions placed on him, and not for the first time. The amount of content is not worth the disruption he deliberately causes. A block was incredibly justified in this case. Ed[talk][majestic titan]19:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm forced to ask, what disruption? In fact there was no disruption until someone brought him to AE over an opinion on his talkpage that effected nobody and would have gone unnoticed if not for folks watching his page waiting to pounce on every minor indiscretion. Capeo (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, are you talking about the people who refuse to dispute Eric's comments because they'll be castigated by him and his talk page watchers? Ed[talk][majestic titan]21:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Eh. This kind of stuff right here is why I quit AE. It's not worth the hassle. As soon as a popular user is the subject of a sanction, all semblance of process breaks down into a shouting match and whoever shouts loudest wins, as usual. That's repugnant. I think it is commendable that in this case an arbitrator took it upon themselves to enforce the committee's decision, and perhaps that should be the norm from now on. On the merits, this appeal is invalid, because per WP:AC/DS, only the sanctioned user themselves may appeal an enforcement action, and it seems that they have chosen not to do so in this case. There is therefore no need for any further action or discussion whatsoever. Sandstein 15:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Procedure above everything, Sandstein. Problem is, we're not dealing with a very popular user here but hey, we don't judge content, right? Drmies (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block as consistent with the Arbitration sanction. If a large portion of the community thinks that the blocks resulting from the sanction are hurting the encyclopedia, I recommend that they ask the ArbCom to amend its original ruling. Sjakkalle(Check!)16:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock I am profoundly discouraged to see this discussion. It troubles me to see editors I like and respect on both sides of this. I sort of get that expressing disgust with a blantantly sexist proposal is technically a violation of the topic ban, but we should be rallying to support his point, not driving him away. --S Philbrick(Talk)17:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Weakly support block i think gorilla warfare defended her block very clearly (and in a very civil manner in the face of some pretty uncivil comments) in this dif.
What she wrote there is that 9 people commented, and "Not a single comment addressed the content of Eric's edit, and whether it was a violation of his restriction from "making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed".
The block was for this comment by the way. If folks haven't read it, they should do.
The violation of the topic ban is very clear. As far as I can see the comment had nothing to do with Eric's content-creation work - it appears to be pure venting/soapboxing, in a new thread that he opened on his own Talk page, with no link to some prior discussion (in other words - not even something we could ~try~ to say arose in a heated argument) Apparently, very, very avoidable - the product of a lack of self-restraint.
But the thread had been closed by another admin...
Outcomes?
Because there were no comments on the issue of whether EC had violated the topic ban, Black Kite should be trouted for a bad close (which are meant to be on the merits, not on sheer votes). (sorry to say that Black Kite)
And GW deserves a trout for acting in a way that doesn't respect the community and that part of our process. The community-respecting thing for GW to do, would have been to have the close overturned before taking action. This speaks to those who are upset about way that action overtakes a decision to take no action and the disparity that causes (applying that principle here is false, however, because the facts of this case are not even a little ambiguous, with the topic ban that actually exists, however unjust it ~may~ be.). If the AE thread had been open (not closed) I would have given the block my complete support.
A lot of people I respect are unhappy about the block... my sense is that folks are unhappy with EC's topic ban (I don't know that much about what led to it) If so, I would suggest they try to get the topic ban changed. But the block itself was good under the topic ban that actually exists. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock: In all this strum und drang, no one noticed that, in fact, I did call Corbett on his remarks, he did not attack me for doing so, and in fact has not attacked me in the past for doing so, either. I frequently call him out when he goes over the top, but I do it in a way that doesn't belittle him or, as did the person who reported him, "go crying to the playground aide saying EC is a meanie." He just exhibited a lack of clue and poked the bear on his own talk page just to see if he could get a rise out of anyone... and he did. This is ridiculous and makes the place look more and more like it's being run like something out of Lord of the Flies. Unblock and admonish both GW and EF to quit playing "gotcha." In fact, I suggest that someone take a look at modifying Corbett's restriction so he can say whatever he damn well pleases on his own talk page so long as he doesn't post it anywhere else, subject only to the general guidelines that apply to all wikipedians (no threat of harm, no legal threats, yada, yada). Let's drop the torches and pitchforks. Montanabw(talk)19:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block: there are no de minimis violations of a topic ban. Either you violate it or you don't. The only exception is in urgent BLP cases, of which this is not. Eric knew he was violating his topic ban and this is rules lawyering in the extreme to keep one of the most unrepentant serial trolls on the encyclopedia because He Disagrees With Us A Lot And To Ban Him Would Be Censorship (i.e. Geek Social Fallacy #1. Sceptre(talk)19:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Great: one of the most unrepentant serial trolls on the encyclopedia. A blatant personal attack, hypocritical because it is precisely the sort of thing that kicks off blethering dramas like this, besides being cobblers. Shouldn't something be done about it? Nortonius (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Great block, I've sat on the fence for a long time, but Eric's is content work does not equal the disruption he causes on a monthly basis. Also per every word written by Sceptre above. Ed[talk][majestic titan]19:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Block was procedurally Bad First, I think the close of the AE report was wrong, Eric did violate the topic ban, and so declining to enforce is an extraordinary result, that should not have occurred so quickly and without additional input. However once the close was made, an action on discretionary sanctions had been taken, and thus undoing that action by blocking Eric, knowing of the close, and without active consensus under the appeal rules, was a serious breach of policy. From a strictly procedural standpoint, we should undo the block, undo the AE close, and resume the discussion there. The problem is that it will likely result in a new block, and end up making the whole thing a bit WP:POINTY. That said, both admins should be seriously trouted, and AE/DS policy should be made clear on this point. Monty84519:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Moot[70] The editor has stated clearly they do not intend to resume editing. This particular editor carries a lot of personal pride and I doubt they will go back on their stated word. As such the editor will never edit again. Thus, let the block stay and expire. Any issues with regard to the technicalities of the AE "bit" of the block can go to ARBCOM. Pedro : Chat 19:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pedro: - you are aware he has retired in similar circumstances only to return, correct?
Really? How surprising. One would have thought an editor so concerned with their own intellectual honesty would never do such a thing. Pedro : Chat 19:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess that it is in fact possible to be intellectually honest and occasionally change your mind. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Unblock The first mover was Black Kite who closed the thread as no consensus. The subsequent block performed by GorillaWarfare is out of process.--MONGO19:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose unblocking. The edits in question to my mind are a clear violation of the topic ban. Making a comment about and linked to a post with "Gender Gap" promiment, is a violation of "making any edit about a process or discussion about the gender disparity among wikipedians" especially as this is to be broadly construed. Given the part of the comment about blocking and mentioning the admin who had previously blocked him ref arbitration enforcement, this cannot be seen as accidental or a mistake. The original closure of the arbitration enforcement was bad as it made no attempt to look at whether the topic ban was broken, was much quicker done than usual and only after editors who are mainly friends with Eric had commented. Given the length of previous blocks a month is an appropriate block length so do not support lifting the block. Davewild (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block the comment was clearly in violation of the topic ban. This editor has a history of violating the sanction, and it's pretty clear that this comment was made for the purpose of testing boundaries, making a point, or annoying people. These aren't circumstances in which we should be giving the benefit of the doubt. You don't need consensus to block somebody, and a system in which you do would be completely unworkable. Nor does AE operate by just taking the opinions of the people who bother to show up there, and it shouldn't (these are likely to be friends or antagonists of the party). I have sometimes seen AE requests closed according to the consensus of the people who commented in the "uninvolved admins" section, but there weren't any here. Frankly the only reason we are even having this discussion is that this particular editor has a lot of sympathisers. Hut 8.520:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There are lots of sympathizers for all victims of unjust blocks, actually. One can feel that the subject has behaved like a buffoon (again) and still feel that this is a miserable, wheel-warring, super-vote by a thoroughly involved arbitrator that should have recused from the original case, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Unblock"Blocks should be preventative" This block has caused MUCH more disruption than it has prevented. "Blocks should not be punative" At this point, it would seem, the block may be punitive.
The REAL issue here is the damage this does to the WP:AE noticeboard. Which is why, I guess, a proposal to close the board has been made. TyTyMang (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support immediate unblock Said unblock should be made by the admin who imposed it, followed by an immediate and abject apology to the community. Additionally, the reporting user should be sanctioned for hounding - preferably with a long block. People need to stop wasting editors' time with this nonsense. Scr?pIronIV20:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Unblock per MONGO. I haven't decided on the merits of the underlying AE report, but I agree that it was improper to impose a block once another admin had closed the thread. The decision to block should not be more powerful than the decision not to block.--Mojo Hand(talk)22:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Immediate unblock for the reasons stated by me at WP:AE and User talk:Eric Corbett. Concur here with Dennis Brown, Cassianto, Davey2010, Hell in a bucket, Noren, Akron, and many others. Support sanctions against GW for wheelwarring. GregJackPBoomer!22:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Unblock - Once again, miserable judgment by Gorilla Warfare on this topic. I'd be interested to hear if she was the recipient of email asking to engage in countermanding (ahem) "non-ArbCom" action... Lousy judgment, again... Carrite (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Block Wikipedia is a big place as I have found out over the last few weeks. If Eric is unblocked then it sets a bad example for all of the other editors who are topic banned. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Unblock. This is a process failure, a waste of time, and a distraction from the larger gender-gap issue. Incidentally, the fact that there have been multiple previous controversial blocks for trivial "violations" is certainly evidence of something, but I don't think it's evidence for the things people are citing it for. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Block - What I believe everyone is missing here is that the out-of-process precipitous event was not Gorilla Warfare's block, but Black Kite's closing of the AE thread before there was any admin discussion about it. I've never seen that happen before - and I've been a regular reader of the page for years. There has always been some admin discussion in the "uninvolved admin" section, even if it's nominal, before an action is taken. I've seen what look like a strong consensus get turned around by the input of another admin, I've seen a single admin's opinion sit there for a while with no additional comment before the admin decided to carry out their opinion, I've seen the discussion section almost die for lack of participation, but I've never seen a thread be closed on the basis of the consensus of the commentators, without any uninvolved admin input at all. I'm sure Black Kite felt what he did was warranted, but it was also unprecedented, and he shouldn't have been surprised to find it being overruled.As for the block itself, it's clear blackletter law. Eric broke the topic ban, was almost certainly aware that he was breaking it when he did it, and may even have done it deliberately. Whether or not that's true, it was still a breach, and Gorilla Warfare's block was therefore appropriate. BMK (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
BMK has the analysis right. The first misstep was Black Kite's closure. There was no consensus, just EC's talk page followers commenting. When cases AEs routinely take days to close, 5 hours is laughable. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 03:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Support block The AE discussion should not have been closed prior to any admins commenting. A group of non-admins complaining that the arbitration decision should not be enforces is not a consensus for anything at AE, it is not for the community to decide if arbitration decisions should be enforced, it is up to us to determine if there was a violation and up to admins to decide on the action. There was a topic ban, the topic ban was violated and any admin would have been correct to block for it. Eric has been intentionally flaunting his restrictions and that deserves a response. Chillum23:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Support Block - I wasn't going to comment on this, because I am sick of seeing the community drawn into this bullshit. But this is a simple case of Eric knowingly violating his topic ban. There can be no valid argument that's not the case. Period. Stating that GW is 'involved' is a red herring. You cannot stop Arb members from performing blocks simply because they have voted in the case that enforcement is necessary in. That should be obvious to any rational person. The fact that Black Kite, whom I respect and like, closed the AE so early, especially when he himself is "WP:INVOLVED", is the real problem here. That also should be obvious. The block should have been non-controversial, because the violation was so obvious. The AE should not have been closed, especially by Black Kite. Now close this stupidity and move the fuck on. Dave Dial (talk) 01:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Support unblock. Per Bibioworm, and DrKiernan's "a minor civilly-worded statement on his own talk page that supports treating genders equally". GW didn't demonstrate any clear violation, but has uniformly attempted to thrust the burden onto others to prove a negative. Add to that an obvious residual bias against EC's very existence on WP, and ... this is no way WP s/b treating a top contributor. IHTS (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The last time Eric Corbett was taken to the WP:AE noticeboard, in January 2015, there was a strong consensus for no action, which on that occasion included a strong admin consensus, but Sandstein cast a supervote and blocked anyway.[71] This time GorillaWarfare blocked after the discussion had been closed as consensus not to block. Why do we have this noticeboard? As Black Kite puts it in his updated close note today: "General consensus amongst admins and others appeared to be that there is no issue to pursue here. However, another admin (and arbitrator) has gone ahead and unilaterally blocked Eric after this AE report was closed. The purpose of this page (and indeed any concept of consensus on it) now therefore appears to be unclear." Yes, the purpose is unclear, to put it mildly. Commenting on it is a waste of time, for admins and other users; at any point in time, a single admin can ignore consensus and unilaterally place the very strongest kind of block, which is an arbitration enforcement block. Those blocks may not be overturned by a second admin, on pain of desysopping: see the pink "Important information" box at the top of WP:AE, specifically the "Information for administrators processing requests". There is a First Mover Advantage carved in stone for AE blocks. (Unlike ordinary blocks, which have a much less strong Second Mover Advantage — see WP:WHEEL.) That is to say, only the first move to block has that advantage. The first, second, third, etc admin movers have no advantage at all if they move not to block the user; not-blocking is quite disadvantaged; nobody gets desysopped if they overturn that. On the contrary, people who overturn not-blockings place themselves in an invincible position. In January, the first three movers (not-blocking admins) were me, HJ Mitchell, and NuclearWarfare, and our non-blocks got overturned by Sandstein. This time the not-blocking admin was Black Kite (who not-blocked per the consensus of the discussion as a whole), and he got overturned by GorillaWarfare.
I don't understand why we have a noticeboard that works like that. The amount of time wasted by non-admin users on it is even greater. When I block persistent POV-pushers and talkpage trolls, I sometimes point out that wasting the time of the community is very disruptive. A noticeboard that wastes our time by drawing us in to uselessly give our opinion, non-admins and admins alike, is disruptive. I suggest we close it per WP:TNT. People who want to draw admins' attention to AE violations can do it on ANI.
I was pinged by something in the above. My view is that the discussion is moot: the AE noticeboard exists because of Arbitration Committee decisions that provide that it be used, and accordingly the community cannot discontinue it, because it can't overrule Committee decisions. That's a proposal to make at WP:ARCA, if at all. Sandstein 15:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure the community can overrule ArbCom. ArbCom is the servant of the community. Trying to push this into an obscure corner won't profit you, Sandstein. As for what proposals I'm allowed to make "at all", meh to you. Bishonen | talk15:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC).
The process for the community over ruling Arbcom on a matter like this by changing the arbitration policy is in place, but there are some significant hoops to jump through. Monty84515:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd actually agree in a limited way, but for the opposite reason. I think AE noticeboard gets to be a way for a popular user to avoid a sanction because of vote stacking. And I'm not just talking about EC here. I'm not sure ANI would be better, but it would attract a wider audience (at the price of likely more drama for situations that really don't need it). However, I think Sandstein is correct and this isn't the place to hold that discussion. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Nope The arbitration enforcement page is there to enforce arbitration decisions. The arbitration committee is there for situations the community is unable or unwilling to solve. We need a place where facts are considered and the person being discussed cannot benefit from a group of cheerleaders who wish to disregard facts in favour of their desired outcome. We all know that enforcement on ANI has a lot to do with a popularity contest, we need a venue where fan clubs can be put aside and facts considered instead. Chillum15:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
And that place is AE? The place where an admin can act unilaterally against consensus? Look at this situation. You have an admin who views an editor favorably closing without action then an admin who views the editor unfavorably blocking. And look at the above. Admins, all of which could have acted unilaterally, on complete opposite sides of how the procedure should have played out. Seems just as broken as AN/I to me. Capeo (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think consensus is needed to enforce an arbitration decision? Nobody disputed there was a violation. People complaining that they don't think the topic ban should be enforced are in the wrong place, arbcom already decided it should be enforced. Chillum02:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Theoretically Bishonen is quite right. However, the AE page should stay and simply serve in the same way as AIV with its mini template closures: for those without tools to bring an issue to a place where it will be noticed by the first admin who comes along to enact if there is a clear infringement. The AE page should not be a venue for deciding to let a user off just because they are a prolific content provider or because their block log is already long enough. The process should certainly not be moved to ANI - the amount of time wasted there by non-admin users on it is even greater still. Kudpung ??????? (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
AE was set up because it was observed that bans and the like were not being enforced. In controversial topics there is still a distressing lack of active administrators willing to rein in irresponsible editors. AE continues to provide a focal point for drawing attention to arbitration rulings that need to be enforced. It isn't intended to and indeed does not preempt the actions of administrators enforcing arbitration rulings individually. If more administrators were willing to do so we wouldn't have created the board. All administrator actions can be reversed either on review by another administrator or on appeal. This is the way it works, folks. It's the way it's supposed to work. --TS16:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Its Arbitration ENFORCEMENT. Not Arbitration Second-guessing. Discussion at AE is for two purposes: 1)Has editor breached their restrictions. 2)Having identified they have violated them, what is the appropriate response? AE is *not* there to say 'well they have but we dont agree with it so we are not going to do anything.' Most admins who contribute there realise this which is why lame reports generally result with a 'no block, dont do it again' warning. Eric has had the 'dont do it again' warnings multiple times. If any other editor had that many warnings and blocks, they would have been indeffed by now. Any new editor who did that would have just been blocked out of hand by any number of admins. I would submit that closing that report as 'no action' is an abuse of admin tools (if you accept the argument that taking no action at AE is an 'administrative action') - its a clear breach, it was intentional and in full knowledge it violated it, and the editor has been warned/blocked for violating his restrictions before. Refusing to take *any* action shows that the administrator's judgement cannot be trusted. It merited at least a 'Look eric, seriously now, stop fucking about, this is your last chance really this time. No I mean it. Stop laughing at me.' warning. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This is one of the supremely rare occasions on which I agree with Tony Sidaway. Arbitration Enforcement is not made to enforce remedies only when there is a consensus for it. In principle the remedies are supposed to always be enforced when a sanction has been breached. Sjakkalle(Check!)16:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with those who are saying that the purpose of AE is enforcement, not debate. But, if there is a disputed case like this, then there seems to be an easy way to resolve it — refer the matter to Arbcom for a quick ruling on what ought to happen in this case. It seems that all concerned agreed that there had been a technical violation and so the arbs just need to indicate the length of block which they consider appropriate (including zero and indefinite). Such feedback will then provide guidance in any further cases of this kind. Andrew D. (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Bish, you note here the super-strong 1st mover advantage at AE vs. the default of the less strong 2nd mover advantage. And I think that is the heart of the problem above in this case about EC. However, I don't think AE is the thing you should be targeting here. The thing to target is the nature of discretionary sanctions and arbcom sanctions in general. Even without AE we'd *still* have a strong 1st mover advantage for blocking admins, because that is the nature of WP:ACDS (see "Modifications by administrators"). "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without..." – that is the 1st mover advantage. It's DS, not AE. Getting rid of AE won't change the 1st mover advantage. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Hooray and I can't believe it took that long, well yes I can someone has actually addressed the problem that I posted about above, not a surprise that it was Bish. The AE noticeboard needs to be closed until the community addreses the problem that any random admin can block someone on their whim and not be overturned without coming here. If this is to be a community noticeboard there absolutely needs to be a consensus to block, whether that be a consensus of unnvolved admins, any admins, or any editors. At the moment it's subject to the IRC or other off-wiki crew (witness recent blocks of Corbett, for example) and is frankly a disgrace. It needs to be changed so that no-one can be blocked without a proper consensus, whether that be of admins, editors, or other. Black Kite (talk)17:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you really expect a big discussion for every last block we do? Blocks can be reviewed, if there is consensus against it then it is reverted. What you describe would make it impossible to do our jobs. Chillum07:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Far better that, than certain sdmins parachuting themselves in and blocking regardless of the discussion taking place (this is not a comment on the Corbett block, incidentally, it's been going on for a long time). Yes, some AE complaints are obvious, flagrant violations and no-one is going to complain when they're closed quickly (think WP:CSD) but an equally large amount aren't (think WP:AFD). Black Kite (talk)
The problem DS and, by extension, AE are meant to tackle is that, frequently, when an issue or an editor become controversial, it's possible for the members of the community on the two sides to deadlock any discussion of that issue or editor into a no-consensus close; for that, ArbCom have given any administrator the right to enforce DS without having to wait for a consensus to do so, but requiring a consensus to undo such actions instead, knowing however that admins misusing DS can be sanctioned, up to and including a desysop.
Now, when admins disagree at AE, best practices suggest that the admin who intends to close the report take the opinions of his colleagues into account, but in the end he's not bound by consensus (though it would be a good idea if consensus is against a block not to impose it).
Finally, there is doubt as to what constitutes an admin action for the purposes of the "don't revert on pain of desysopping" provision of the DS policy, but, for what it's worth, I believe that closing an AE thread with no action counts as an admin action, as opposed to simply saying "I don't think a block is warranted here" (and I have the feeling I have already said this, though at the moment I can't find where). SalvioLet's talk about it!18:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
What Salvio said. The purpose of Arbcom is to deal with the shit that the community cant. Do you really think, Black Kite, that it makes sense to reduce a board dedicated to enforcing violations of those same issues the community has proven unable to deal with subject to the whim of the community? In that case, yes, you might as well just close down the board. Personally, I would like to know why you felt an editor's fifth noted violation of an arbcom sanction in six months warranted no action. Was it just because a bunch of his supporters rushed to the AE page upon seeing the notification on his talk page? I would suggest that what happened here is precisely why arbitration enforcement shouldn't be left to community consensus. Whether it should be handled directly by the arbs and/or their clerks is another discussion, however. Resolute19:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a Corbett issue, it's an AE-in-general issue. Your point would be perfectly fine if ArbCom was capable of always creating enforcements that were black and white. But, inevitably, the cases that end up at AE are the ones of the "this is skating close to a violation, is it one?" type, where it's not immediately obvious. Then what ends up happening is a load of people opine on the issue, followed by an admin blocking (or not blocking) based not on the discussion, but their opinion. This shouldn't be how it works. Black Kite (talk)07:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh please, @Black Kite:. Of course this is a Corbett issue. You think anyone bats an eye if random editor x gets blocked for a month for a fifth violation of an arbcom levied topic ban in six months? And as far as "this shouldn't be how it works", I would suggest that rush closing an AE request on an obvious violation because a bunch of Eric's friends quickly showed up with "I like Eric so leave him alone" responses that failed to address the fact that he is continually ignoring his sanction is not how it should work either. You are quick to judge others, but slow to recognize your own errors that helped create this latest situation. Resolute15:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I was wrong, Maybe I wasn't. But no, this isn't an EC issue, even if this event has highlighted it. Have a look back through the AE archives, especially at the (many) GamerGate related requests. Black Kite (talk)15:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Question: In the cases we are discussing, is/was there a consensus that there was a violation but no consensus regarding what to do about it? If so a single admin deciding to block seems to me to be correct. Or Is/was there no consensus that there was a violation? If so a single admin deciding to block would appear to me to not be justified. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There was no dispute in the AE thread that a violation had occurred. There was very strong support in the thread amongst non-admins, that a block was not justified. As AE closes are based on uninvolved admin comments, the clear consensus of the non-admin commentators (with an admin comment in the regular statements area, not the admin discussion) is not necessarily dispositive. With no comments in the admin section, the thread was closed no action by an admin. Eric was then blocked by another admin, who was aware of the close prior to blocking. Monty84519:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Question So what's stopping any admin with an axe to grind from going back through AE threads closed as "no action" and blocking, following the example given by an arbitrator here? MLauba(Talk)20:31, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Question What happens if there are no uninvolved admins? Eric's "fans" (supporters) are clearly not uninvolved; many would say that if an admin had blocked Eric in the past, he/she is involved (although that's contrary to policy). Is anyone left? Can an editor who has offended all admins be blocked? I specifically decline comment as to whether it was a good block, as I admit having been personally attacked by Eric, and hence involved. — Arthur Rubin(talk)20:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I've been in arguments with Eric in the past myself, but as a veteran law enforcement officer and long time security manager, I know that justice isn't served by shooting people for littering.--MONGO21:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
SUPPORT The only way to appropriately handle these issues is to sit down, shut up, and mind your own business. AN/I handles incidents, AIV handles the vandals. AE is only there for the POV pushers, the activists, and the perpetually offended to whine about other editors, to try and get an upper hand in their arguments. Scr?pIronIV21:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@ScrapIronIV: I apologise for what will be a brusque statement; this post (and your comment in the section above) shows you really don't know what you're talking about. I'd suggest you focus on something else, as you're adding no value whatsoever to this discussion. Sorry, I appreciate this sounds a bit rude, but honestly I think you're out of your depth and you would be well advised to have a little more tenure and experience before commenting on complex issues like these. Cheers. Pedro : Chat 21:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Pedro: If you need to apologize in advance, you probably shouldn't say it at all. Those are appropriate words from someone who sailed through RfA back eight years ago, when you had the same level of contributions I have now. In the last five years, you have not contributed as much as I have in the last six months. You would be well advised to try your hand at actually writing an article in the current environment. Things are not the same as they once were. And THAT is why Admins should be forced to go through RfA again, after a couple of years. You spend your time on Wikipedia pages and Talk pages, and don't have to actually deal with work in this new environment. Go ahead and try to edit an actual article without the tools behind you, and see if you can survive it. That was one of the most arrogant and condescending statements I have heard from an admin on this site, and that is saying a LOT considering what I have seen. Cheers? No, I don't drink with those who insult me. Scr?pIronIV21:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Bishonen, I'm not unsympathetic to your point of view. As you note, I have been in Black Kite's position before. I agree with your opinion that GorillaWarfare's block was an out of process reversal of an discretionary sanction (full disclosure: a particularly sharp editor will find a few examples somewhere in my history where I argued the opposite). But I can't agree with your proposed remedy. Look at how much of a madhouse this thread is. Yes, part of that is because it is Eric, but part of it is because this is the 11th most watched Wikipedia-space page. Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change showed me how unworkable community discussion pages are without some structure, rules, and enforcement authority. Yes, AE could use with some reform and oversight by ArbCom, but I don't think that need extend to closing the page. NW(Talk)21:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Personally, I think Bishonen is proposing this specifically because it is Eric. What better way to protect a friend/ally than to shut down one of the few forums where she and Eric's other allies can't lock the process into perpetual paralysis? Resolute22:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Though this has been archived, it is fair that I should note that I have retracted this viewpoint. Resolute14:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
As has been pointed out, this is literally an impossible decision to make here in the first place since arbcom decisions' require the utilization of the board, unless we want to set a precedent that ANI consensus can overrule arbcom, which would literallly defeat the entire purpose arbco was created for. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't appear that an outcome that is satisfying to all parties will be achieved here. Does the community think it should be moved to formal proceedings? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The ed17, I'm sorry, I looked at that and didn't see where it addressed one admin overturning another admin's decision. I may have missed it though. Could you provide a diff for that? Thanks, GregJackPBoomer!23:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There's clearly a problem with AE that needs to be resolved here and I don't think AN is going to solve it. To me, it's obvious that if one sysop closes a discussion as "not-block" and another one overturns that decision an hour later, then there needs to be a referee: someone who can step in and knock heads together and restore order. I don't think I've ever seen a clearer demonstration of Wikipedia's need for someone who can custodiet the custodies.—S MarshallT/C23:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposal to limit arbitrators from undertaking arbitration enforcement
Following on from the proposal to close the AE process, if that doesn't pass/is veto'd by the Arbitration Committee themselves, I'd like to float the following simple addition to the rules.
I'm interested to hear from the community if they think arbitrators should be restricted from undertaking any arbitration enforcement actions concerning those users and cases where they were sitting arbitrators (whether or not they were directly responsible for imposing topic bans and discretionary sanctions).
I believe it can be seen to be inappropriate and unfair for Arbitrators to be able to propose, individually, various sanctions during the Arbitration case proper, for the committee as an entity to take a different course of action and for individual arbitrators to be able to pursue their original intentions (or to appear to do so, accidentally) through the Arbitration Enforcement system.
If the situation was reversed and the Arbitrator had taken administrative action prior to the Arbitration Case, it would be likely that the Arbitrator would recuse themselves from hearing/participating with the case. There's a strong record of Arbitrators doing this, and it is to be commended.
In this case, we have a situation where GorillaWarfare supported the indefinite block of Eric Corbett, before returning to the Arbitration Enforcement pages and imposing a one month block. I have to assume good faith and trust this was solely an attempt to deal with the situation, especially as it's not something explicitly prevented by the current policies. I think it would be helpful for all involved, including the Arbitration Committee to restrict them from undertaking any form of Arbitration Enforcement themselves. Nick (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
If Eric had not violated his sanction - that passed by consensus - then Gorilla would not have been able to block him for a month. She wasn't arbitrarily enforcing what she thought the outcome of the decision should have been, she was enforcing what the outcome of the decision actually was. Eric didn't accidentally violate his sanction; he did so intentionally, presumably to see if he would actually have the decision enforced, perhaps because he simply wanted to laugh at the drama, or maybe he wanted to take a month vacation anyway. Eric has had formal ways to appeal the sanction since it was passed if he disagreed with it - he has not done so. Eric has formal ways to appeal this block if he disagrees with it - he has not done so. There is no need to get all Andrew Jackson like and ban the arbs from enforcing their own decisions. Their power is limited externally by elections and internally by hearing cases en banc rather than one at a time. This suggestion would make some degree of sense if Gorilla had arbitrarily edited the GGTF decision after it passed to ban Eric unilaterallly after the idea had been rejected by others. She did not. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking half-formed ideas towards the opposite -- that AE decisions should be made by Arbs on behalf of the committee, in the process of enforcing the decisions, sanctions and remedies they themselves voted on and agreed upon. If ArbCom sanctions are decisions solely voted upon by ArbCom members, the enforcement of these sanctions might be better off not left up to the judgement of administrators. Of course, that runs contrary to the views of many (including my own) that the community should be more involved in policing themselves than ArbCom should, but... I dunno. I'm just rambling I guess. Since people are throwing ideas left and right anyways... ? · Salvidrim! · ✉00:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea. It would encourage more thoughtful decisions. If they have to deal with their own mess it will likely be a cleaner case...hopefully. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with Salvidrim!'s idea. I likened this to probation above. EC was brought before a panel of judges and sentenced to probation (instead of being site banned which would be akin to jail). That probation has conditions (tbans and ibans in most cases). Probation violations usually get you put back in front of the same judge. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 03:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
That would mean a tiny group of people who handle all the enforcement with no possible oversight. That undermines WP:ADMINACCT and a host of other policies, and is extremely dangerous. Their job is to make the call, only when the community can't, and that is all. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
And I think ArbCom have enough on their plate already, hence in part many of the delays that occur. All this could have been avoided with a touch of humility ... - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You assume incorrectly. I think you quite probably (along with Kevin) also incorrectly assume that I do not think Eric should be blocked. but I'm used to snarks from the likes of you. - Sitush (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Excepting emergencies, my understanding is that most Arbs won't do this anyway. So yes, this makes sense. Many Arbs won't get involved in ANI cases for the same reason, they may have to hear the case at Arb so they don't want to be involved. Not sure if we have the authority here or how to word it, but it should be (and I thought it was) common for Arbs to keep an arm's length in enforcing cases they have previously adjudicated. This case with GW is one of the most obvious examples of why they shouldn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢00:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Separation of powers doesn't mean what you think it does, at least in the US. I guarantee if you piss off a judge enough, you'll promptly be escorted to jail by a bailiff on the judge's authority. Hell, arrest warrants are literally issued by judges in general. Unless you're speaking of a different country, you're just off. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The law-making body does not enforce the law. That's what I mean. Maybe the US is even more screwed up than I thought, although I vaguely recall the concept being stated in de Tocqueville's Democracy in America or some such. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Law-making bodies do enforce laws. In the United States, jurisprudence is granted the weight of law (though less than black letter law, and judges are the people who issue arrest warrants, writs to enforce the law etc. By ignoring the Supreme Court decision's in Worcester, and thus continuing to deprive tribes of limited internal sovereignty, most people credit Andrew Jackson with the Trail of Tears which isn't exactly generally thought of in glorious terms. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Kevin, I worked in the judicial system, and appalled by your lack of understanding here. Judges authorize the request of the executive and adjudicate, but it is the executive branch that executes (and the legislative that creates), which is why every court has a bailiff, a peace officer, when it is needed. Wikipedia isn't the US govt, so the direct comparison doesn't work anyway. This whole Andrew Jackson comparison is such hyperbole as to be laughable. Dennis Brown - 2¢01:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
While you're correct that I slipped up by not pointing out that bailiffs are in fact peace officers and part of the executive branch - and you're quite right that we're on Wikipedia so the whole analogy is rather silly - the court system absolutely creates laws unless you're in a civil law or similar jurisdiction (and even then in Louisiana, they kind of still do.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I have to second Dennis Brown's comments. The lack of understanding of the political system as to the executive, legislative, and judicial systems, is appalling. You clearly do not understand the concept of separation of powers, of jurisprudence, or of black letter law. GregJackPBoomer!02:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Having someone second scolding me on a rather minor error on an almost totally irrelevant subthread of an Eric subthread has to be the most ENWPian moment ever ;). I do not lack understanding of the concept of separation of powers, of jurisprudence, or of black letter law. Although I misspoke in not pointing out that court peace officers are members of the executive branch, my original post pretty much stands. Common-law judges both enforce and create law, inarguably. I also should have contraposed jurisprudence against statutory law rather than black letter law, but the original point pretty much stands. Judges in most of the western world, inarguably, both enforce and create law. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Strong oppose. I don't normally use strong, but there it is. Of course arbs should be able to enforce their decisions. If hey had no reason to recuse themselves in the case then the act of participating in the case does not make them biased. Chillum01:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose making this a rule, but it is bad practice for arbitrators to be regularly involved in arbitration enforcement, because... well, we can see the controversy it started. --Rschen775403:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose basically per Chillum, not to mention the fact that such a major change to policy should be made through a properly considered discussion and not in response to any particular issue. I'd also note that part of the issue here is that because admins who take what should be uncontroversial actions against EC get badgered to a truly extraordinary extent (as this whole series of threads shows) it's appropriate for arbs to get involved in routine AE-related admin actions in cases such as this (made with or without their arb-specific hat on, as appropriate) because many admins are unwilling to get involved due to the amount of misery this will cause for themselves. Nick-D (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Chillum and Nick-D, but note the valid point that arbitrators taking AE action risk appearing involved (or at least having to explain why they aren't) when/if the AE action is subsequently relevant to a case. Arbitrators don't suddenly cease to be admins, and are free to carry out any routine admin duties in addition to being on the committee. Good practice suggests they should make clear which actions are done in which capacity when they do so. This would make clear how on what evidence the action was based, and how it can be reviewed. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
It is largely irrelevant whether the action is taken as a member of the Arbitration Committee or as an individual administrator, any Arbitration Enforcement action is still performed under the protection of the Arbitration Committee, the body that any Arbitrator taking action as a regular administrator remains a member of. The remaining members of the Arbitration Committee shouldn't be placed in the situation (whether or not it exists in this specific case) of having to then deal with the consequences of an action taken by one of their colleagues. This is as much about being seen to be doing the right thing as actually doing the right thing, removing any suggestion or appearance of bias, involvement or hidden agendas, and I believe it would be as beneficial for the Arbitration Committee as it would for the rest of the community to stop the same group of users both making imposing restrictions and then deciding how to enforce them if and when they're broken.
The community, unfortunately, doesn't have an enormous amount of trust in the Arbitration Committee, and in recent years, they've become disinterested in elections, leaving our Arbitrators to be elected with relatively low numbers of votes and low support percentages. It's fairly clear that the entire Arbitration Enforcement system needs to be rethought, it shouldn't ever be the case that the first administrator to review an enforcement request gets to make an action which can't easily be reversed (either taking action or refusing to do so) as that's something that quite obviously can (and almost certainly is) gamed on a regular basis. The whole process has become so over-complicated that I hear former arbitrators and current functionaries complaining of the rules seemingly changing on a daily basis. The discretionary sanctions system is similarly dis-functional and worthy of a mention here, at a recent Arbitration Case, I saw one user legitimately claim that although they were aware of the Discretionary Sanctions concerning a topic that they were editing, as they had not formally been issued a Discretionary Sanction warning, as logged through the edit filter system, they couldn't be treated as being bound by those Discretionary Sanctions.
There are too many loopholes, booby-traps and far too much potential for confusion due to the way the current Arbitration Enforcement and Discretionary Sanctions system is set out. The thread above, arguing for Eric to be unblocked because of a potential conflict of interest involving GorillaWarfare is one such issue. In this case, I'd like to see Arbitrators explicitly banned from undertaking Arbitration Enforcement when they sat on the committee and heard the original case(s), but for practical reasons, I wouldn't be opposed to an equally explicit policy amendment that specifically states that Arbitrators may undertake Enforcement without it being regarded as a conflict of interest, and no unblock should be considered on that basis.
We are eventually going to come across a case where Arbitration Enforcement really doesn't work in the way it is intended, and a significant amount of disruption is going to result, purely because the system isn't fit for purpose. It might be this case already, who knows until we look back in retrospect, but there's a lot of people unhappy with the current Arbitration Enforcement system, as witnessed up above, and something does need to be done to significantly improve it. Nick (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This too is a moot proposal because the community cannot change Committee-made arbitration procedure. However, on the merits, I'm of the opposite view as the proposer. This case shows, as have previous ones with some of the same protagonists, that where AE intersects with powerful wikipolitical fault lines or social networks, enforcement of Committee decisions can be substantially hampered by what amounts to harassment campaigns against those who take enforcement actions, merely because large groups of Wikipedians disagree with the sanction that is to be enforced. Under these circumstances, only the Committee itself has the authority and the institutional capacity to give its decisions the binding force they are supposed to have. That this is not a conflict of interest should be obvious: the Committee is not a party to the conflict but its deciding authority. Arbitration procedure should therefore explicitly provide for mechanisms to allow enforcement decisions to be made by arbitrators, individually or collectively, in all or some cases. Sandstein 08:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The community can amend Arbitration Policy, which could have the effect of changing committee made policy. Note that the process for amending Arbitration policy is that either the committee must propose the change, or an amendment petition must be signed by 100 editors. After which, there is a vote, and a minimum of 100 support and a majority are required to ratify the policy change. While this discussion can't make a binding change on committee made policy, the community could if it really wanted to. Monty84514:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. As I noted above, the purpose of arbcom is to handle the cases the community can't resolve. Stripping arbitrators of the ability to handle the cases the community can't resolve is a step backwards. Resolute15:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment - Dare I say that Sandstein has it right? ArbCom creates the ArbCom-generated restrictions. It should be up to ArbCom to enforce them. As it stands now, we have a tattle tale board in which, by GW's precedent, any administrator can flout so long as they are blocking. A complaint plus any one random administrator agreeing with the complaint = unreversable block. It is clearly a defective system. Push it back to ArbCom and maybe they won't be so cavalier with their vague topic bans... Carrite (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The previous admin to close the block discussion self reverted. Reaper Eternal has now closed it, and apparently implemented consensus. I guess we get to debate what an "active consensus" means. (Ideally, we would just call it done and wait for Arbcom, but don't see that happening) Monty84504:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't seen Reaper's previous close when I posted this, but he would've been well off to read Courcelle's comment on Adjwiley's page earlier today warning Adj not to modify the block Kevin Gorman (talk)
That assumes the block was a valid DS block. If you follow the line of reasoning that the DS block was in violation of DS rules by unilaterally overturning the no action decision at AE, then the block isn't protected by the DS rules. Though this will almost certainly force open the Arb Case absent a self revert. Monty84504:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You can't overturn any AE action without strong consensus, that didn't stop GorillaWarfare from blocking contrary to the AE no-action close. Monty84504:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a debate about whether or not a no action close is an 'enforcement action' - I happen to strongly thing it's not. What Reaper Eternal just overturned was a clear AE block without clear at all consensus. If he thought Gorilla violated policy, the appropriate thing to do would be seek sanction, not violate a redline. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
And others just as strongly think that it is, which would mean that GW violated the same redline. Are you saying that if it comes down that ArbCom feels that Black Kite's close was an AE admin action, are you saying that GW should be sanctioned? Because if it is unclear, it is inappropriate to call for sanctions on one and not the other. GregJackPBoomer!05:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
If Arbcom were to find that GW violated the same redline, than sanctions would, yes, be called for. They'd likely be significantly different, because it's very unclear if a no-action close after an abnormally short period of time was an 'enforcement action,' whereas it's very clear that undoing an AE block out of process normally gets you desysopped. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
No, it may be a bad call on consensus, but it would not be wheel-warring to implement a decision from AN by the community. GregJackPBoomer!05:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
You are free to do so, but you should remember that you are limited to 500 words in your section, and by my count you are already 108 words over the limit. GregJackPBoomer!05:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Bit too much of a hassle to add Reaper while using my phone. If no one has by tomorrow, I will. I can cut down my section more too. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 06:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Well said. You know, when I get to visit Germany again (sigh, hopefully not too far in the future), we'll have to meet and have a beer. GregJackPBoomer!06:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I find it incredibly depressing that people think petty AE bureaucracy is a bigger issue than an admin relishing in the thought of killing another editor in a vile and painful manner (even if it wasn't meant as a serious threat). Why is this scumbag still an admin? Why is there identity being protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosstopher (talk • contribs) 08:31, 28 June 2015? (UTC)
It happened off-wiki, was not communicated to Eric by the person stating it, and was clearly not an actual threat of harm. We have always had hard time balancing what to do about off wiki statements with the fact that it isn't en.wikipedia's job to police the rest of the internet. Monty84515:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems obvious that these events will covered at the Arb case, which is most surely going to be accepted due to all the events. As such, this thread is more forum than content, and I suggest everyone tune into their Arb channel instead, and end this thread as we have no authority to take action here, unless someone wants to wheel war. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I'd like to bring the above issue to the general attention of admins since it involves the site-wide notification. -- A Certain White Catchi? 12:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following motion has passed and been enacted:
Technical 13's indefinite block is converted to an indefinite ban imposed by the Arbitration Committee. Technical 13 may appeal this ban at any time to the Arbitration Committee if he wishes to return to editing.
Technical 13 is limited to one account, and may not edit through any account other than "Technical 13". He is explicitly denied the right to any sort of clean start.
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 consider revdeleting this? I know it's borderline but I didn't want to take any chances. And I did already email emergency@wikimedia.org. (I also know that WP:SUICIDE instructs to contact an admin privately, but, well, which admin would I choose?) Erpertblah, blah, blah...04:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
IMHO - this was a user hyperbolically complaining and leaving, not an actual threat of self harm, but let's just leave it for emergency@wikimedia.org to review and decide what to do. If they don't act I don't want to delete this person's parting comment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
An option (if you have it) is to go !admin in the Irc channel and youll tend to have a load available who you can message privatley. Amortias (T)(C) 09:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why? He is appealing to other sockmasters to stop because he may have led to collateral damage and it has been his one and only post. I would hope that he is regretful and that it may influence others that socking isn't such a good idea. We've got it under control. — Berean Hunter(talk)23:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I beg to differ, if a sockmaster is free to post, then he or she is not "under control." An indef block for block evasion would get the situation "under control". We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to probe into the psychology of people who deliberate cause disruption, or to help them play their little games. Can we please get an admin to block the admitted block-evading sock-master User:Message to you all? BMK (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I want my UTRS ticket to be cancelled. I have deleted my E-Mail and have changed my password by copy pasting a sentence from a news website(without reading the line properly) to make sure i don't remember the password. I will never be able to login even if I want. If you have doubt, you can ask a check user, whether this account is mine or not. No need to waste any Administrator or Check User's time on that ticket13876. Block this account also.--Close the UTRS ticket 13876 (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Irrelevant; such users are already banned. If any admin ever unblocks these people without community discussion, we're going to have a discussion about banning the admin from use of admin tools for their severe indiscretion. Nyttend (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Cali11298 (talk·contribs) is a prolific sockmaster with 47 confirmed sockpuppets. He uses his sockpuppets to edit war on Republican Party-related topics, comic books, and other miscellaneous articles. He also attacks people who disagree with him with his sockpuppets; and especially likes to harass Flyer22, the editor who busted the sockfarm numerous times. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive.
Unless you can demonstrate a benefit from banning, I would oppose as being unnecessary and bureaucratic. They are already de facto banned as it is, by virtue of their actions. Making it official just seems like chest thumping that will feed the problem rather than solve it. Dennis Brown - 2¢19:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Where someone is already de facto banned, identifying how a formal ban would be beneficial should be required to initiate a ban discussion. In the absence of such a benefit, we should just follow WP:DENY, and not draw any extra attention to them. Monty84522:06, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment: One of the benefits of WP:Banning is that it is usually more difficult for the editor to argue his or her case for returning via WP:Standard offer or similar means than it is if the editor is simply WP:Blocked (even if they've been WP:Blocked many times for WP:Sockpuppetry and/or other WP:Disruption). In my opinion, being bureaucratic in that regard when it comes to editors like Cali11298 is a good thing. As noted in this section on my talk page, he has aspirations to be a WP:Administrator; that simply should not happen. I don't want to read about second chances, third chances and so on for editors like that. Anyone who thinks that Cali11298 could be successfully rehabilitated should think again and again on that. That stated, he is currently WP:Socking, and WP:Blocking him and/or WP:Banning him won't keep him from WP:Socking. Flyer22 (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Can we not have this same damn discussion every time someone asks to have a long-time disruptive frequently-socking blocked editor banned? If we're always going to get into what the benefit of BANNING is over BLOCKING, then let's just do away with banning altogether and have no distinction between them, since the argument is there's no purpose in banning. The only discussion when this comes up should be whether the editor under discussion is disruptive enough to deserve banning, not how many blocks can dance on the head of a ban. Geez -- if an editor's behavior is bad enough, BAN THEM, if it's not, don't. It's extremely simple. BMK (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I trust, then, that if an editor deletes edits made by these two miscreants on sight, as they would be allowed to do if they were banned and not blocked, and some admin decides to block the editor for those deletions, the blocked editor can count on Nyttend to unblock them, based on his closing comment above? BMK (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
BMK, the "miscreants" part of your post gave me the giggles; thanks for that. As for the question directed toward Nyttend or others, I revert Cali11298 on sight when I recognize him...if I feel like doing so or the need to do so. But, in one case, I was criticized for repeatedly reverting him because I hadn't yet filed a WP:Sockpuppet investigation and the account was not officially confirmed as his. Indeed, repeatedly reverting a WP:Sock when you know it's a WP:Sock can get you blocked if you haven't yet provided any evidence of the WP:Socking. But as NeilN stated in that aforementioned discussion, common sense should also come into play. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
If an admin deletes edits because they're made by a banned user's sock, it would be thoroughly out of place for another admin to block the first one. Or perhaps you just mean "removes edits", e.g. reverting the changes? In such a case, it would still be a very bad idea to block on those grounds alone. Either way, the reverter/deleter should be judged on whether the account's really a sockpuppet, whether it were reasonable to consider it a sockpuppet, etc. If the editor's allegedly a Tirgil34 sock, there's no reason to treat the reverter/deleter differently from what you'd do if the editor were allegedly a sock of Grawp. To answer your question, I'd at least be tempted to unblock on sight. If the behavior were something appropriate for fighting a Grawp sock, and the block was just for that (as opposed to that-with-something-else problematic), I'd readily accept an unblock request. Nyttend (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone speak to how quickly we could get a mediation going for Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War? It seems to me that most editors on that page are acting in good(-ish) faith, and would be able to come to a reasonable conclusion.
However, the situation changes frequently, so I'd hate to have to wait a few weeks to get a mediator unless absolutely necessary. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Newspapers were prone to adding or subtracting "Evening" or "Morning" depending on circumstances. Look at the images here, and I think you'll see that the "standard" name (before it merged to be the Herald-Examiner in 1962) was simply "Los Angeles Herald-Express" with no "The" and no "Evening". BMK (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I must be getting a different assortment of images, here in the Great White North. Most of the ones I get are not even for the right newspaper, and all the ones that are, show "Los Angeles Evening Herald and Express" or "Los Angeles Evening Herald Express". Perhaps the word "evening" was omitted on the morning edition? Not sure. Regardless the word "The" is not present on any of the photos, so I have gone ahead with the move. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, on some of the Herald-Express images, the word "Evening" can be found hidden somewhere. I don't know the history of the paper well enough to know if they started with the "Evening" and then backed away from it, or what. I do know that my favorite newspaper merger was here in New York City where the "World, Telegram and Sun" merged with the "Journal-American" and the "Herald Tribune" to become the "World Journal Tribune", one newspaper representing more then 7 previous papers (because each of the component papers had gobbled up other papers in their history without adding their names to the title). It didn't last long - the only thing that came out of it was "New York" magazine, which began as the WJT's Sunday supplement before going independent. It was where I read Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, before he expanded it into a book. BMK (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, just a FYI. I've just found and tagged lots of pages created by two BDA's sockpuppets. In the next weeks/months I expect he to be back recreating them with almost the same contents, so please have a look at them, ty. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Apologies if this is the wrong place to bring this up.
Could you please add autocorrect="off" to the search fields in Wikipedia? Usually people come to look up proper nouns, and iOS devices constantly try to "correct" them. It's maddening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LastFootnote (talk • contribs) 15:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
On Template:User page (which is fully protected), it directs you to the HTTP version, which Wikipedia then changes to HTTPS. Should the template send you directly to the HTTPS version? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Can we move forward with the banners? There only are 9 days for it to matter. -- A Certain White Catchi? 20:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Someone has explained what to do on the talk page, but you appear to have mistaken it for a request to protect a page. I think if you carefully re-read their remark you will know how to proceed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why my watchlist is being destroyed by a giant banner advocating for a particular political viewpoint? RGloucester — ?21:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@RGloucester: I didn't participate in the discussion, but the banner says "A proposal in the European Parliament would require removing thousands of images of modern buildings and sculptures from Wikipedia." - That doesn't appear the be advocating anything. The page it links to does, however. Dustin(talk)23:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, my answer to "now what" is delete WP:NPOV since obviously it doesn't apply any more. We're a political advocacy organization, not a neutral encyclopedia. --B (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@JzG: It is one thing to say, "free content is a good thing". It's another thing to say "call your politicians now and tell them you want free content". Political advocacy has no place in a neutral encyclopedia. --B (talk) 23:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Standing by while free content is made unfree, would be an abrogation of the project's ethos. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Just noting that apparently this banner is rendering Mobile unusable; this needs to be addressed promptly, please. Risker (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Was just looking at my mobile watchlist and didn't have a problem. Could be because I already collapsed it on desktop though. Ivanvector?? (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
How about leaving it permanently off unless/until the purveyors of this message figure out how to make it only show up in Europe? The proposal that was approved was for a EUROPE-ONLY banner. I am in the US and I saw the banner. The discussion on sitenotice seems to be that sitenotice doesn't have the geolocation capability. A motion was passed that promised the banner would only show up for European users. No banner has been authorized by any discussion that will show up worldwide. --B (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I'm fine with having it show up on my Canadian screen if it means that it's showing up in Europe. I just meant to point it out in case there was a problem and nobody realized. Ivanvector?? (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to remind the time constraints. Today is the last day for amendments and 9th is the day to stop the problematic text. Putting the banner up too late is the same as not putting the banner at all. -- A Certain White Catchi? 08:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not have anything to do and browsed Special:ProtectedTitles to see if anything interesting would appear. Apart from tons and tons of HAGGER, I noticed that some file titles are protected here but have been created at Commons and I wondered whether administrators would like to know about them so that they could either unprotect them or request their renaming at Commons. I found these:
I have to admit that I cannot easily make out why some of these titles are protected, particularly the Wiktionary logo, the British Coat of Arms and the Kosovo flag.--The Theosophist (talk) 00:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I randomly looked at a few of them. In one case - File:Triads.jpg, the file that existed here had nothing to do with the file that now exists on Commons and it was protected to prevent someone from uploading a completely unrelated image used for vandalism. In the case of File:Deepika.jpg, people have repeatedly uploaded copyvio images and the title was protected to stop that. In one case - File:Wiktionary-logo-en.png - I was actually the one who protected it because it was getting re-created with test edits or junk. I believe that the software will stop non-admins from blocking a Commons image with a local one, but it won't stop someone from creating a local description page. So if someone is either vandalizing the local (non-existent) description page or is incorrectly thinking that the local page is the place to put content (e.g. File:Edit-this-page-large.png), then it potentially makes sense to protect the local page. --B (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I placed an AE earlier today in relationship to Gamergate [72] (the details of that specifically under that, please note I'm not bringing the user complaint I have here to AN, as it is not appropriate). However, I mistakeningly used the wrong part of the GG Arbcom results as the request for enforcement, and Bishonen closed it as a procedural aspect since I did not include a proper sanction to be enforced. I talked to Bishonen about unhatting it (as opposed to undoing that action) to correct this, but they did not think I had given him a reason for that, but because their time was short, suggested reviewing this at AN (further directed here by Seraphimblade from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests which is apparently a low-traffic page.)
I will point out that I do want to simply correct the sanction in the AE form that I wished enforced to be the Discretionary Sanctions [73] of the GG decision (which refer to the previous community sanctions for GG [74]) which I believe is what is being violated here. Also please note that I completely see Bishonen's logic that the closure done was procedurally correct, and don't have any issues with their behavior as it is likely necessary in a case like this, and I simply want to be able to have the AE reopened so that I can fix the issue to allow the AE to continue (instead of refiling completely). --MASEM (t) 05:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that that AE case applies here - it's a question that I made a mistake, it was closed following policy to the letter before the mistake was identified and fixed, and I'd like to have it open to fix it (and not engage in even touching an edit war on the Arbcom pages). --MASEM (t) 06:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you referring to the wheel warring case? I don't think that's an issue here. Bishonen pleaded limited time and redirected to other admins: "If you don't like what I say, could you take it to ANI, please, or to AE talk, and try to get consensus for overruling me? I have to be out of here in five minutes." Rhoark (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
More admins are needed to monitor gamergate because the WP:CPUSH tactics coordinated off-wiki will drive away good editors. Masem's AE report aims to topic ban MarkBernstein because he is "protecting female developers/journalists" and is therefore not neutral. However, the evidence diffs show pretty reasonable replies to Masem who has made 2123 edits at Talk:Gamergate controversy since September 2014—seven edits per day for 300 days—as well as 382 edits to the article. Such dedication is remarkable but it is time for a break. Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I dunno, I'm pretty uncomfortable seeing MB implyaccused of implying that Masem defends rape / rape threats and nothing done because the filing at AE is defective. GoldenRing (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Depends if there is evidence to support the claim, really. If Masem genuinely is defending the gamergaters' rape threats, then calling it out would be entirely reasonable. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Please do not post inflammatory claims without supporting diffs. If you are referring to the exchange at Talk:Gamergate controversy#Expertise all I see is Masem making various claims that seem to suggest that female victims of prolonged harassment will have biased opinions about gamergate, so their opinions [even if they are experts?] should be discounted. MarkBernstein probed Masem's statements concluding "Since the rape threats make no difference in our assessment of Brianna Wu’s expertise, why are we discussing this?" In no way does that imply Masem defends rape threats. Johnuniq (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Johnuniq:I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make any accusation at all, though now I can readily see how what I wrote can be taken that way. What I meant was that the AE filing contained that accusation, quite a serious one and a nasty personal attack, IMO, and the filing has been dismissed simply because Bishonen took issue with the form of the filing, not the substance. I didn't mean to make any comment on the merits of the filing. I've edited my above comment to better reflect this. GoldenRing (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"...so their opinions [even if they are experts?] should be discounted" is something I have never said, at all, and that's the same bad faith assumptions Mark has used in his comments to me. (I did say that they become more dependent than independent, and thus factors at WP:IS come into play but doesn't invalid them as sources). --MASEM (t) 12:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur that additional attention from uninvolved Administrators at both the Gamergate controversy Article and at WP:AE is wholeheartedly welcomed; and make an unequivocal call to action to Administrators who can address, fairly & without bias, the behavioural issues endemic in this topic space to so do!!
W.r.t "WP:CPUSH" and tactics coordinated off-wiki, however, it should be noted that these are by no means isolated to one side of this polarised content dispute. This topic area is brigaded by any number of editors clearly displaying partisan points of view, and there are a number of off-site forums where these Wikipedia Articles, and those editing them, are discussed - covering both extremes of the spectrum of views on the subject matter. NB: URLs to external sites available on request.
I would also suggest that questions of editorial neutrality, the assertion around "protecting female developers/journalists", and the reasonableness of behaviour are best addressed at the WP:AE discussion itself - I concur with GoldenRing that an implication that an editor supports or defends rape or rape threats is particularly poor behaviour and should not be left "undiscussed" on a technicality.
I also note that the assertion above of "Masem's aims", might reasonably be construed, based on the WP:AE filing[75] itself, to be a "straw man" misrepresentation of that filing, and would invite Johnuniq to redact or strike through it. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.'11:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ryk72: While the 'protecting female journalists' claim does not encapsulate Masem's entire filing, I find it hard to call it a straw man as that argument is made explicitly in the final paragraph of the 'additional comments' section. And, as a general observation, forgive my naiveté, but couldn't Masem simply re-file? There's no double jeopardy at work so far as I know. I understand that's a bit annoying, but meta-discussions can be as well. Again, if I am missing something obvious, my apologies. Dumuzid (talk) 11:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Dumuzid, I thank you for your mentioning this. The 'protecting female journalists' assertion is explicitly stated in that section to not be the reason for the filing. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.'12:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ryk72: I read that final paragraph as asserting that an excess of zeal for the protection of said journalists has rendered Mr. Bernstein 'not neutral,' and implies it is the source of the alleged bad behavior. As such, to me, it is very much a part of Masem's argument, and, therefore, it might be irrelevant, but cannot be said to be a 'straw man.' Reasonable minds may differ, however. Dumuzid (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not so much that I claim Mark is not-neutral, but in that in his zeal to protect these people (the female game dev/journalists) from further harassment, he is calling out anyone (on or off wiki) that does not so much fully agree with his position as part of this GG activity (the movement, the supporters, the people trying to influence WP, etc.) as a means to devalue their contributions and beg their intentions. That, to me, is a battleground mentality right there. Whether that is the case or not, that's the basis of the AE request. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ryk72: You write that "tactics coordinated off-wiki...are by no means isolated to one side of this...dispute". While bad behavior certainly has been plentiful on both sides, I am unaware of any "tactics coordinated off-wiki" by anti-gamergaters. For months I have regularly monitored pro-gamergater forums for advance warning of targets on Wikipedia, but I have never seen any of that off-site from anti-gamergaters. Could you identify where their off-side coordination is happening so I could monitor that as well? Gamaliel (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Masem's WP:AE report finishes with "Mark's continued personal attacks and assumption of bad faith is nowhere near appropriate, now considering the decorum that ArbCom has asked from the case." An experienced editor making a post like that at AE knows they are inviting a topic ban, particularly given the history of similar requests at AE—consider Masem's successful request concerning another editor a week ago which resulted in that editor's topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq, The attribution of the rationale or reasoning "because he is "protecting female developers/journalists" and is therefore not neutral to the WP:AE filing is not supported by that filing itself, which explicitly states that this is not the reason for the filing. I invite you to redact or strike through it. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.'12:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
If the matters of the original WP:AE filing are to be examined here at length, editors may consider it easier for that filing to be reopened, at least until such time as the editor filing can make the changes required to make it compliant with the policy under which it was closed. (Should they still wish to do so). Thoughts? - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.'12:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The complaint lacks merit, quite independent of its procedural issues. Nothing will be served by reinstating it, other than possibly a boomerang enforcement against Masem. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
20:47, 2015 June 29? Diff #1 - Mark comments on why he reverted a change (okay) but suggests that opining that a person is not an expert would require revdel (see comments)
MarkBernstein correctly notes that the edit summary violates WP:BLP. It is not really at the level requiring oversight or revdel but it is certainly not appropriate in context. Any sanction based on this diff would apply to Torchiest , not MB.
15:59, 2015 June 30 Diff #2 - Mark called unnamed editors but with rather obvious intent on who as "Gamergate fans", and started to question the possible case of a source, harassed by GG, would be invalidated.
The comment is valid in context. Pro-gamergate editors are suggesting rewriting the rules to automatically define anyone who was harassed by gamergaters, as conflicted, and thus unreliable. That would indeed be convenient for the harassers and unjust to the victims. The complaint as evidenced by this diff is frivolous.
16:38, 2015 June 30 Diff #3 - Mark assuming bad faith in interpretation of a comment I made.
Again, a reasonable interpretation by MB of the likely effect of an extremely ill-judged proposal. People should read the comment and understand what it says about the proposed change, rather than try to shout down the person making the comment.
17:07, 2015 June 30 Diff #4 - Mark calling me out as assuming I'm okay with people receiving rape threats.
Actually what MB said was the precise opposite: "I'm just assuming that you think it's OK for victims to object to rape threats, do correct me if I'm mistaken". (emphasis added)
17:00, 2015 June 30 Diff #5 - Mark's reply to a request I made at his talk page which again assumes I and others are acting in bad faith.
The diff is civil and entirely in line with documented fact. The gamergate arbitration shows unequivocally that some editors were not acting in good faith, as MB says. MB's comments are well within the bounds of civil discourse. Masem clearly implies that MB is not reading comments, which is uncivil, and then comes seeking redress when MB offers a robust rebuttal.
Taken as a whole, the complaint is vexatious, bordering on hypocritical, and amounts to an attempt to abuse Wikipedia process to remove an opponent. Masem, do you want the AE re-opened? If you do, you will need to keep a wary eye out for boomerangs because I for one would have closed that AE with a final warning to you to step back. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm well aware of boomerangs, I would not be looking to file or re-open if I felt there was any issue in my behavior under policy/Arbcom. The issue is that I have been keeping as civil as possible in discussions in this field avoiding any editor commentary on mainspace/talk page and focusing only on content, but Mark seems to level personal attacks and bad faith on a regular basis, which he has been warned and topic banned before not to do under GG sanctions. I have constantly expressed that I am "anti-GG" relative to the target, so being continually lumped into the "pro-GG" side to explain my actions or argued of being part of the off-line cabal working to influence the article is tiring and does not help with consensus-based discussions to improve the article in WP's scope. --MASEM (t) 12:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
With respect, that sounds so much like "some of my best friends are black" that I have trouble taking it seriously, especially in the context of your extraordinarily active engagement in that topic area. My first and best suggestion is that you take a break from the battleground before burnout sets in, because the AE request indicates an acute lack of perspective. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I recognize it sounds like that, and can see why this AE request, in isolation, may seem rather trivial and a means to remove an opponent, but I have taken a lot of personal flak over the last 6 months and a lot of my words being twisted around to paint my actions as an anti-thesis to the goals of WP when instead I am actually trying to work with everyone involved (without commenting on other editors) on what is a rather complex and difficult topic to write about as an encyclopedia. When you get treated like crap over and over for taking a stance that is slightly contrary to a different opinion without civil discussion, that's a problem; that's the battleground behavior that the GG arbcom case was based around. --MASEM (t)14:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
In that same time you've engaged in a quixotic effort to re-interpret NPOV in order to prevent bias from the totality of reliable sources on the subject. The GG movement, insofar as it exists, treats the perceived bias of what any reasonable wikipedian would consider a reliable source as a constant threat. After you have been turned away on the talk page (a 30+ day RfC), the NPOV talk page and various noticeboards, you have persisted in applying this framework of maximal credulity regarding one view and extended skepticism for another. This response you're seeing is your peers noting this is not just out of line with community expectations and certainly at variance with the constant claims that your view is the neutral one. Protonk (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
What this is what is basically a DUCK-like effect : If I'm begging the reliability of recognized sources (in terms of whether we cite things they state as claims or facts simply because of being contentious statements), that's the same question that the GG supporting side has used, but that should not imply that my motives for raising that question are the same goals that the GG supporting side wants (which has the stance that all the reliable sources are in collusion and thus should not be used). It should not be implied at all that I am align with them simply because my position on a specific aspect aligns with them under AGF, but it has been. This is the problem with the GG area as a whole - it is that very much polarizing that anyone outside the extreme ends is see as an opponent by either size. This type of behavior is strongly discouraged on WP and what has formed the basis of the battleground atmosphere there. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
With respect, the veiled-to-naked support for the hyperbolic thesis that Masem is pro-GG sounds so much like "no true Scotsman Anti-GG editor" that I have trouble taking it seriously. I have had the opportunity to observe Masem's edits over the last 5-6 years and have worked with him at several different articles where I have come to conclude that if anything he is culturally on the exact opposite side of the chasm from the conservative-misogynist-rapetreatening-MRA-hardcoregamers that the RSes suggest make up the rank and file of GG. The worst I can say about Masem is that he is willing to err on the side of neutrality. In most areas of WP that's considered model behavior. This is character evidence so take it for what it's worth, but to me the notion that Masem is a closeted GG supporter and a secret rape-threat apologist is outright nonsense. -Thibbs (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I can second this, as I've been in and out of discussions with Masem over the last 5-6 years. I haven't followed his (or anyones) edits about GG, but whenever we do cross paths, there's never been any indication of any bad intentions like this. Sergecross73msg me15:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure Masem is a terrific fellow. Anyone who reads the 2000 posts -- perhaps a quarter of a million words -- he has written on the subject in recent months will doubtless form an opinion, and no doubt you both have done so, too, and that’s great. I hope you enjoyed them as much as I did! I have not always been of your opinion, but I also have not expressed disagreement with your premise on Wikipedia in months. In fact, just yesterday I humbly asked Masem’s assistance in reducing the persistent use of Wikipedia to harass women in computing, though we did disagree on whether one particular game industry executive is an expert on the game industry. His answer? You see it before you. Am I expected to explain myself here? What is going on? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Without commenting on the merits, I will just say that the closing at AE appears to be in good faith and within process, and I don't see a convincing argument to reopen the case and/or pursue the matter further. Dennis Brown - 2¢12:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
There's no question its in good faith and within process; it's just a procedural close driven by a very correctable technicality. (A technicality that applies equally to this filing, that's stood much longer with no one suggesting it ought to be closed.) Masem could simply re-file with the necessary tweak to the boilerplate, but is being scrupulously attentive to community consensus. Rhoark (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll also point out there are particular difficulties involved in arguing the filing is not worth discussing while simultaneously discussing the filing point-by-point. Rhoark (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Rhoark: I'm sorry, this is undoubtedly my own morning sluggishness, but I am not following. Who is suggesting that the filing is "not worth discussing?" Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not an accusation, but an advisement to everyone in the thread to reflect on the fact that the more they feel the need to comment on the matter, the greater indication that is that there is a matter worth commenting on. It would also be better to do that commenting elsewhere than a venue that should be focused on the procedural technicality. Rhoark (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Golly Good Morning! I sure am glad this discussion (of which I have not been notified) is not about me! (Boy howdy, isn't this fun!)
Some of you might recall that I have repeatedly requested (in prose and in verse!) to be addressed with conventional respect, either using the appropriate courtesy title, my full name, or my Wikipedia user name. Masem specifically knows and pointedly ignores this.
My reading of the introduction to this page suggests that much of the discussion above is less than appropriate, and I am very skeptical that this is benefiting the project. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, Masem's original post was more about the close of the discussion (ie Bishonen) than you, so that's probably why he didn't notify you at that point. Other's kind of moved it in that direction (I suppose its too bad no one happened to notify you though.) I'm not sure I follow your complaints about how anyone is addressing you though. Do you somehow find "MB" to be offensive or something? Sergecross73msg me13:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Technically, MarkBernstein should have been notified because he had a stake in the outcome, thus the right to opine about the reopening. I'm guessing that is an oversight and sort of understand how it isn't immediately obvious, but anyone who can be affected directly (once again he would be facing sanction) by a proposal of an AN/ANI, or is at the core of the discussion, should be notified even if they aren't the central party in the dispute. Dennis Brown - 2¢13:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I see what you mean, and I personally probably would of notified him, but considering the proposal's content, its hard to see any bad-faith intent here, that's all. Sergecross73msg me13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Sergecross73 -- from a trek to ARCA, to which I replied with some 45 lines of alliterative verse:
....conflicting views, bringing heat,
Can better be handled with courteous care.
“Christian” names, to my ear, can sound rather familiar,
And I don’t recall that we’ve been introduced.
Adversaries adopt (in America) address
That’s more formal. I think Dr. Bernstein is fine.
I did attend Swarthmore: if perchance you’re a Friend
Or don’t like to use titles, my names, please, in full.
To be absolutely accurate, of course, I don't think you were addressed anywhere in this thread, just talked about. GoldenRing (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Uhhh... you're free to suggest that I suppose, but no one's really required to do that, no more than if I were to ask people to call me "Mr. Serge" or "Sir Cross" something like that. Its nowhere near a civility or personal attack violation, so I don't see it as having any bearing on this. You've complained you weren't notified...but nothing you've had to say so far really has had any significance on the actual discussion happening. Was there any point to this subsection other than having your own section for saying "I don't approve"? Sergecross73msg me13:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
“Issues appropriate for this page could include: General announcements, discussion of administration methods, ban proposals, block reviews, and backlog notices.” It’s not clear to me how any of the discussion of my supposed faults and misdeeds is pertinent here. I may have been very wicked, but I haven't blocked or banned anyone, I haven't requested a review, and I'm not a backlog notice. Why, exactly, are my bad deeds being discussed here? Isn't it interesting that this discussion was headlined 8 hours ago at Gamergate's board for coordinating its Wiki campaign, along with a lengthy “study” of my work on securing the deletion of [Jews and Communism] -- something to inspire the troops? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I will say it was not my intention to have your behavior discussed here, Mark, only to ask to fix up the AE case with the proper sanction so that the discussion would occur in the right place; and for that I apologized it spiraled out to this. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I was saying in my first comment - you (Masem) started a discussion about the close, and others made it about Mark Bernstein. Right or wrong, this part wasn't Masem's fault, yet he continue to be Mark Bernstein's focus, which is the only reason I stepped in - I have no stance or participation in this Gamergate stuff. Sergecross73msg me14:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Given the statements above, I would like to retract my request to reopen the AE. I still believe there are discretionary behavior issues here, but I will reconsider the issues raised above and, if necessary, refile a new, refactored AE in light of those. The discussion is going too far into specific GG complaints that I did not intent to on this page (at AE, yes) that further discussion is likely not going to be helpful. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
With all that is going on, Arb clarification on AE and such, it is reasonable that everyone is a bit gun shy on changing AE closes that are within process, so closing is probably best. Dennis Brown - 2¢15:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Temporary injunction regarding the restoration of Scott's admin privileges
The Arbitration Committee requests that restoration of adminship for Scott requested at the bureaucrats' noticeboard be suspended while the Committee communicates with him.
This is now marked as "Request temporarily suspended following formal request of the Arbitration Committee" on the bureaucrats' noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
This user have been blocked permanently on ar. wiki. check here after finding out that he is a socket puppet. Check my talk page and u'll find his last message, its full of insults and curses for me and ar. wiki. I can translate what he said, or you can use google translate and u'll get the message. Anyway, this user is a trouble maker and he already proved that on ar. wiki (even writing poetry insulting other users . Thanks in advance--???? (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried Google Translate and I'm pretty sure the second one is calling you 'spineless', but the output doesn't make a lot of sense grammatically. Can you translate here for us so we can use a translator tool just to verify what you're saying? KrakatoaKatie17:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I have informed the user of this dicsussion, and warned them for personal attacks and for not communicating in English. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
=English: You are arrogant and cocky. You wouldn't answer my messages. You think you are of such importance now, shame on you. You don't fear God, you are always abusing users on Arabic Wikipedia, along with this Abbas character (another admin). You both are arrogents and you'r saying i'm a troll, i swear you are the troll, its just that my manners are better than yours, you'll always stay small (no body) in your thoughts and mind.
= English: I messaged you here because you blocked me perminantly without anyreason on ar. wiki, but i don't care cause my manners are better than yours, and i have full confidence in my self, not a weakling such as you, you unjest silly lebanese. I don't care even if you complained againsted me in English Wikipedia, i don't care about wikipedia anymore anyway since it has varmints such as you.
Sorry for that . Anyway, i did answer him several times. check here, although we found out he was a socket puppet and gave him another chance despite him cursing here for example. Apart from him cursing me, i thought the english wikipedia community should take notice if he is active here, cause he might repeat what he is doing. Thank you--???? (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Edits can't be permanently deleted, except in extremely strict circumstances and that requires the the WMF to delete it from the datebase. (e.g. posting images of child pornography, court order, etc.) The revision doesn't meet the criteria for revision deletion, so we can't hide it from public view. Best, Mike V • Talk18:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Your summary is overly restrictive. Privacy concerns are explicitly mentioned in CRD, and birth dates are a BLP concern. (And yes, I know you're on oversight and all: ie, clarify, please.) Choor monster (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
For the information of the original poster, while it is nearly impossible to permanently delete an edit, there are two mechanisms that can be used to hide an edit. The first is redaction, commonly known as revdel for historical reasons, which is available to administrators, and hides the edit from everyone but administrators. The second is suppression, commonly known as oversight for historical reasons, which is available to an even more restricted group of functionaries known as oversighters, and hides the edit from everyone but oversighters. My guess is that the original poster was requesting that the edit be redacted. I agree with Choor monster that a case can be made that it qualifies for redaction as a BLP privacy issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Given that the official website of Kristen May's band lists her birthdate on their official website on the first page of their Frequently Asked Questions and given that WP:DOB explicitly states that Wikipedia uses birthdates from "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object" I'd argue that not only should the birthdate not be given the extreme version of deletion, but shouldn't have been deleted from the article at all. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
ec as well, I deleted the edit for a few minutes to check (it's best to remove, then restore with potential BLP issues) and came to a similar conclusion to User:CoffeeCrumbs. I'm not putting it back into the article, but the claim is validly sourceable. Keegan (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I sourced the birthdate, added the cite. Primary source, but this is basic information. Also helps defuse any argument that this birthdate was made public without permission. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Jax 0677, why did you do this revert? [77] You claim it is a "fan site" but it surely looks like the band's official website. Can you provide some info as to why you think it is a "fan site" and not their official site? Otherwise, it would make sense for someone to revert you for inaccurate summary. Dennis Brown - 2¢19:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Dennis, that site does say fansite in the box in the bottom left corner. Hard to read :) This is their official site. Keegan (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Certainly fooled me. Wish Jax had just said that we were finding a convincing fan site if he already knew instead of just reverting! Still don't see a pressing need for redaction, but an admin can worry about that. 20:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeCrumbs (talk • contribs)
Reply - If I remember, WP:DOB says that date of birth should probably not be shown in an article unless it is widely publicized. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
DOB can be included if it is either widely publicized in secondary, verifiable sources (in other words, can't just be in one issue of Spin) or self-published by the subject in a credible place like their own website. If contested, it's appropriate to just make it the birth year and leave out the day/month. Regardless, you are correct: this is a fansite, doesn't count under the either or the or of WP:BIO and should be excluded for now. Deleting the revision does remain excessive IMO. All in all, we seem to be done here after the confusion has been sorted :) Keegan (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
EtienneDolet, I've finished the merger. I protected the page to prevent edit conflicts (a likelihood because you advertised it in a prominent place), but that was just a convenience factor; no admin tools were necessary to finish the merger. If I'd done a history merge (which does require admin tools), it would have made a big mess in the page history. Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The whole proposal was that of merging Former toponyms into Geographical...Greece, not the other way around. I think it would be better if you used the formal requested moves process or informally chatted with the other merger participants about a name change. I'll be happy to move it if people agree to move it. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Wikimedia Foundation has given a grant to the Ada Initiative to conduct an Ally Skills Workshop at Wikimania this July. Valerie Aurora of the Ada Initiative recently wrote to the gender-gap mailing list:
"The Ally Skills Workshop teaches men simple, everyday ways to support women in their communities. This workshop will be laser-focused on techniques that work specifically in Wikipedia and related projects, including how to use existing policies and suggestions for advocating for new policies. It will also teach people about the mindset of trolls and what strategies work best for foiling them."
Editors (of any gender) who want to help close the gender gap are welcome and can sign up here. Admins willing to help women with dispute resolution are particularly welcome. Sarah(talk)01:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the Ada Initiative, that well-known home-from-home for former WMF employees with a heightened social conscience etc. SV, I can sort of see why your notice is relevant here but, really, in the current circumstances, including at AE/ArbCom., it might grate somewhat. Valid? Probably. Necessary? No. - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Count Iblis' voluntary restriction from the Ref Desk
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 announced this at AN/I and on the Ref Desk talk page. The recent dispute was the trigger but not the real reason for this decision (the Ref Desk has been going down the drain steadily in recent years due to infighting and since last year I'm a lot more active here). The decision I made is:
"Count Iblis hereby announces that he will stay away from the Ref Desks permanently. If Count Iblis violates his voluntary restriction, an Admin should block his account. If in the future Count Iblis wants to return (unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future, but who knows what may happen in a decade from now), Count Iblis will first apply for his voluntary restriction to be lifted at WP:AN. Count Iblis (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)"
I request that the AN/I thread about me be closed, because it only leads to pointless discussions. These discussion have ballooned out of proportion and people can easily end up only reading the polemic arguments about me which make me look like the worst Wiki criminal ever. Count Iblis (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I closed the ban request, since the proposer's goal was functionally the same as what Count Iblis has agreed to. No point in continuing the discussion farther. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I accidentally discovered today, to my detriment, that one of PIA's proxies (the California one) isn't range-blocked like most of the others are. According to APNIC, the affected range is 198.8.80.0 - 198.8.95.255. Unless there's a reason not to, this range should probably be blocked as well. – Robin Hood(talk)03:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This notice: "Join us at Catayst, Widnes, for an editathon on 8 August 2015 - write about chemistry and chemists." includes a spelling mistake (Catalyst is correct).--Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Over the past days we have had a lengthy debate on how to present the opener for Kosovo. There was an RfC in which a clear majority voted in favour of sovereignty but we also agreed to keep "partially recognized" and "disputed territory" as close as possible to the first line and I feel I did this in a VERY generous manner, one that could even accuse me of being POV for the minority voters. Lots of space devoted to the points defended by the losing side. Can I ask for the article to be protected for a while and as quickly as possible, even to the stage that I myself may not edit the article. Its regulars need a Wikibreak anyhow and I say this even for those with whom I saw eye to eye over the RfC. Thanks. Newquartermaster (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The place to ask for page protection is WP:RFPP, but we aren't supposed to protect pages preemptively, so it isn't likely to happen either place. Dennis Brown - 2¢12:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
June 25, 2015 Regarding my aBan appeal at AE wherein I requested the action against me be redacted from the log, I am now requesting a review of that close. If I may please begin by saying that I realized when I initiated the appeal that there would not be much time for an AE decision to reverse the aBan since the duration was for 7 days. My purpose for filing the appeal was so neutral administrators would carefully review the evidence I provided because I felt the aBan was undeserved and stemmed from a rather noticeable bias and double standard Callanecc has exhibited toward me on more than one occasion. I was asking that it be redacted from the log and that Callanecc recuse himself from future administrator interactions with me, and I believe the evidence I provided is substantive.
The closing admin dismissed the appeal without considering the basis of it, and instead referred to the expiry time, and for reasons unbeknownst to me also mentioned article content in a rather suggestive manner, June 29, 2015 EdJohnston. The close was also questioned by an uninvolved editor, June 29, 2015. The closer refused to respond when I questioned the close on his TP, June 30, 2015.
June 22, 2015 - Callanecc stated: "I'm not saying that this is correct in this instance, but the other thing which tag-team edit warring (as you see it) could be is other editor's enforcing a consensus." His decision was based on an assumption rather than an analysis of the actual events. If Callan had investigated the TP to know where consensus stood, or at least looked at the discussions, the edit summaries, dates and times of actual reverts, and who was editing vs reverting he would have known. Another administrator certainly saw what was happening and addressed the editor who had reverted my edits, June 16, 2015 Jimfbleak. This is where the bias and double standard comes into play with regards to Callanecc. He has done this same thing to me in the past as the appeal evidence will demonstrate, not to mention the fact I was correcting issues of noncompliance with NPOV in the article in both instances. Callan has on several occasions in the past ignored my requests for help against editors making PAs against me, and would hat my concerns or simply refuse to respond to my questions, June 24, 2015. However, he is quick to act against me as evidenced by the aBan he imposed without warning or question, and the emoji incident. I understand admins have the authority to impose DS as they deem necessary but I would think our admins would at least take the time to investigate the situation before banning an editor, even if it's a "lenient" aBan. Lenient or not, an aBan stays on the log which makes me appear to be a disruptive editor, and that is simply not fair.
I realize my request for review is going to seem like much ado about nothing since the aBan has been perceived as "lenient" and was shrugged off as not a big deal, but it is a big deal to me because I felt it was undeserved - as undeserved as the rogue emoji and harmless pun Callan issued a ARB warning to me over in another situation. Again, see the evidence in the appeal. But even if we were to decide that the 7 day aBan was a "lenient" action, it still begs the question, lenient in what regard? A lenient mistake or that it was far more lenient an action than what should have been imposed? Why was I the one Callan automatically assumed to be the guilty party? There are a lot of questions surrounding this action, and I would greatly appreciate the attention of uninvolved admins who can review this appeal and the evidence without preconceived notions, or favoritism to one side or the other since admins are involved - true neutrality is all I ask. I would think it's the least I should expect under the circumstances. Believe me, I understand the admins involved in this case are outstanding admins who do good work for the project in so many different ways and they deserve our utmost respect, but we're only human and even admins make mistakes. I don't have tenure, but that doesn't make me any less deserving of a fair review by neutral admins. Thank you. Atsme????17:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I oppose this. Atsme, every single time you open your mouth, you put your foot in it. The AE was closed against you because your request reinforced the impression that the restriction was correct, and you attempted at the same time to relegislate every other occasion when you've been wrong, presumably in the hope of waving it all away in one go.
Face it: you are an entirely maddening person to work with. You get an idea in your head, and you will not drop it. And instead of learning from this? You just go round and round the same loop. It's always everybody else who is biased, showing favouritism and so on, you never show any sign of self-awareness or self-criticism at all.
You remind me of the old joke about Dieu Et Mon Droit, presented as the motto of MArgaret Thatcher and meaning: God and me are right, but not necessarily in that order. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Reviewed and endorsed. Discussion was closed properly given the fact that the enforcement was rather light in the first place, and everyone involved clearly found the arguments used in the appeal to be rather unimpressive. JzG's advice is good advice here; just drop it and move on, because continuing to assert bias from those who say you don't want to hear is only going to make people dig in even further. Lankiveil(speak to me)12:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC).
comment - It has nothing to do with the "lightness" of the DS - it is still a means to justify stronger DS whenever an admin gets the urge to do so. There is a much bigger problem here than a simple 7 day aBan. I understand admins are busy, but isn't this what the job entails? Guy is the recipient of the removed DS warning and other special favors, [78], [79], he who refuses to drop the stick and resorts to PAs to get his way, [80], [81], and "will not" drop it, and Callan says "Call me gullible", erases all traces of the block, and advises Guy about me saying "for if/when this eventually ends up at AE for someone to look through your edits and believe that Atsme was pushed or harangued through incivility or personal attacks on your part". One need look no further than Guy's comment above because the behavior continues. Callan refuses to answer my questions and as the following diffs will demonstrate, begins to fold under the pressure of the cabal or whatever you want to call them. Guy's warning was the only deserved one but of course they don't see it that way: [82], [83], [84], and the focus turns to me, Callan's response to that editor, and I defend myself, but Callan hats it and continues discussion with the others, [85], [86], and his position now favors those who were being uncivil so the focus turns to content and righting great wrongs about FRINGE/PS. I'm watching as this all unfolds and I become the target of the cabal because I simply tried to follow PAGs and get the article right. [87]. And then an uninvolved admin weighs-in to question Callan's DS block of a GF editor who had done nothing wrong intentionally, [88], [89], [90]. A new editor even questioned Callan if any action should be taken against Guy, (we have since lost that editor because of what happened here) [91], Callan's response about you editing against consensus, and why I have to laugh whenever you accuse me of "will not" drop it. And here is Callan warning about violating PP, [92]. No action was taken. Guy, I'm not a child who needs reprimanding and I don't appreciate the condescension. I've been a very successful writer for well over 30 years, long before WP came into existence, and am quite familiar with NPOV, liability, semantics, syntax, and the like. I was also judge for an international sporting event so I know what "fair" means. The only lesson that needs to be learned in this situation is good manners and it needs to start with you. Calm down, your attacks against are unwarranted, and at least try to behave collegiate if you don't understand professional etiquette. He actually did a pretty good job of demonstrating the bias and double standards that are at issue here. I'll just add a few more diffs to demonstrate the defamatory statements he made about a BLP on the TP which provide the evidence as to his own biases and why he has such a problem with NPOV, wingnut drivel template, and here [93]. Atsme????15:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I hope that means you are moving on to something joyous and exciting. You've contributed a lot to Wikipedia and I thank you for your efforts. Dragons flight (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
10 years to the day, which can't be a coincidence. Reminds me of the Beatles. Whatever you from here Gadget850, we wish you well and want to thank you for over 100k worth of edits on Boy Scout related articles and more, plus your service as sysop. God speed. Dennis Brown - 2¢22:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RGloucester told me to go to hell because I supported deleting something he wrote (I did not nominate it for deletion),[94] and I take great offense at this. I reported this at ANI as a personal attack. It was promptly closed by Berean Hunter (talk·contribs).[95] I do not believe, based on RGloucester's record of incivility and bullying, that he was joking. I'd like review of this closure from a neutral admin please, or confirmation that telling people to go to hell is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. Thank you. —????????YO ?? 05:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I've never seen Firefly. Admin Chillum made an astute comment that given RGloucester's history, it's less likely to be believed that it is a joke. Additionally, considering RGloucester's bizarre religious statements (including his claim of speaking the direct word of God) and general grandiose language, I see no reason why I should buy it's a joke. —????????YO ?? 06:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
When will it all end? I understand that needs must when the devil drives, but must the devil drive you to this? Please, put me out of my misery before I'm forced to drink a bitter marmalade. I've never seen a firefly, have we got them in wherever it is that I am? Never you mind, though, that's a child's question, no? My position on this matter is clear, least said. RGloucester — ?06:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I submit the following remedy, to be considered by such editors as those above.
To be put into effect immediately:
His Grace The Duke of Gloucester, being both a scoundrel and a badger, is hereby proscribed from entering the following areas within the bounds of the encylopaedia that is known to itself as "Wikipedia":
All noticeboards
All deletion discussions
All requested move discussions
All requested merge discussions
All matters controversial
All matters subversive
His Grace, in line with the above prohibitions, shall not enter the boundaries set thither, lest he be punished in the manner prescribed by both the law of man of and of the Divine. Such punishments may include direct beheading, slight slapping, or entombment within the stocks that sit betwixt the village pump and administrator's noticeboard. Should The Most Noble Duke decline to agree to these restrictions upon his movement, he shall be immediately ostracised and thencewith removed from these territories by prerogative of His Majesty King Jimbo The First of Wales, in consultation with his Ministers of the Crown. In attaining accordance with the above measures, His Grace may, if and only if it be needs, enter the talk space of a certain article. In all other cases, His Grace must attain isolation from the standard channels of communication within the territories governed by His Majesty. To be enacted on this, the 4th of July, in the year of our Lord two-thousand and fifteen.
In a recent ANI thread, I said there are two problems with you: you have a bit of a battleground mentality and you're quite annoying. This definitely falls into one of those. DeCausa (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Done - In the future, you can report simple cases of vandalism such as this to WP:AIV. Best, Tiptoety talk 09:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Done Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Resolved
It's okay Beeblebrox, I forgive you. That was much hours of work though. Hopefully an admin can fix it.... Cheers... CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
. Hopefully this does not have a bad impact on my WMFLabs Xtools review of my article creation log and account statics. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Dragons flight (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
wikimedia.org from an address that's given on the website. All this being said The email can be pretty simple. For example, using owner@akrusso.com, send an email saying "As shown at http://www.example.com/russo.htm, I am the author of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:William_F._Frye.jpg, and I release it under the CC-BY 3.0 License." Finally If you find this confusing, or you want more help, go to my talk page and leave a note, and I'll be happy to try to help you. Nyttend (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for putting together these numbers. I'm not sure how to compare these, given the rise of the admin bot. Do the actions per admin include bot actions? How many of those older actions could have been done by a bot? If the number of admin actions taken (NB not "needed", which is impossible to measure) is more or less stable, are these actions now harder/slower/more complicated cases (because the bots did all the easy ones)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
