Template:Active editnotice

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 22 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 76 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 54 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 53 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 53 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 50 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 40 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 37 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 54 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 52 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 25 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 24 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 73 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPath^talk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 45 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 29 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?

(Initiated 17 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

An editor has made an improper use of rollback here [1]. This rollback did not revert vandalism to the Anzac Mounted Division article. The edits rollbacked were not accidental, they were properly cited and clearly set out the various names of the division, and therefore cannot be considered unhelpful to the encyclopedia. The editor who made the rollbacked edits was not a banned user. --Rskp (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion above about "poking" bears, admins may care to review Talk:Anzac Mounted Division. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this matter is much bigger than an alleged illegal use of rollback. Among other things, it's a ridiculous ongoing edit war about whether we should write ANZAC or Anzac. The main editors involved are simply not engaging effectively. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rollback aspect is trivial; it merely enables one to save a few seconds when reverting. North8000 (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Illegal"? Which section of the Criminal Code was broken? You'll want to notify the legal team ... ES&L 23:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be more helpful to cut back on the snark and reply to the substance of the complaint. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No...it would probably be best if editors did not make legal accusations that do not exist.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone have a look at the illegal roll back? --Rskp (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how rollback abuse is not illegal?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was that even a rollback or just a simple revert? I can't tell. Anyone?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that last question. Rollback of 4 edits. [2]--Mark Miller (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a roll back. [[3]]. Your link is not to a roll back, it is to the last of a series of edits which added a full stop. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then...if yours was the rollback and the other editor just reverted...who is at fault for abusing their tools? Hmmmm. An explanation is now required.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Mark Miller linked to the addition of a full stop. --Rskp (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when is adding a full stop a roll back. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would be snarking, I suppose becuase, I don't even have rollback privileges. What tha ...? Can someone focus on the illegal rollback linked in the first post of this discussion? --Rskp (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@North8000: The aspect is not trivial - per RBK, rollback is not to be used in situations like this.

I'm not quite sure how so many edits have been made under this header for irrelevant reasons. We know what RoslynSKP meant when they said illegal. There is no constructive reason to banter about the implication of legal action.

That being said, I'll raise this issue with Jim Sweeney. After that, I'll stop by that article's talk page. m.o.p 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad someone understands this. I am still waiting for an explanation as to where the actual rollback was, but I guess just not understanding is not an excuse for asking, but thanks. I'll just wait for my general sanctions to kick in over who I associate with on Wikipedia. Thanks you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: This is a rollback. m.o.p 02:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe you. Now... why does the history not say it was a rollback? The only such rollback the history shows (and I admit my ignorance on this) is the last edit by Rskp? I am not trying to be an ass. I guess I am just one by nature and just need an explanation as to why, from my view of the situation, I only see a single rollback being done and not by the accused editor.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: That's what a rollback looks like. You can tell due to it being marked minor, the text linking to Help:Reverting, and the layout of the edit summary. Also, RoslynSKP physically couldn't have performed a rollback, as they don't have the necessary privilege. m.o.p 03:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time this editor has abused rollback privileges. See here [4] --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as someone with rollback...if the editor abused it, take it away. Of that much...I will agree. But will not support using language that exaggerates the situation in any way. Thanks m.o.p!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you have been unnecessarily harsh, and lacking a bit of good faith. Considering our community's diverse composition (amongst English-speaking peoples), it is geocentric to assume the context of ones prose, basing it on your norms alone. With so many soccer fans, and football too, as well as many other sports, "illegal use of" is nearly synonymous with "unsportsmanlike conduct" and proof that "illegal" is not exclusive to jurisprudence. Tighten up sir.—John Cline (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Third Transjordan attack [5] here for discussion and link to the first instance. --Rskp (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated impugning of reputation

This issue has been dragging on across multiple articles relating to the Palestinian theatre of WW1 for about a year now (possibly longer). As one of the coordinators of the military history project I've commented in a few of the relevant discussions, but haven't used the admin tools given that I've had lots of interactions with the editors involved. My consistent perception of this dispute is that its RoslynSKP against the world: he or she has their preferred names for articles and units (which tend to be a bit old-fashioned, and don't take into account the fact that there are often different terms used for the same thing in this particular topic) and consistently takes a combative attitude to try to enforce this. Calling improper use of rollback "Illegal" is typical of RoslynSKP's WP:BATTLEGROUND approach - instead of trying to reach consensus through calm discussion, he or she routinely escalates disputes. The various editors RoslynSKP fights with are all in good standing, and often seem pretty fed up with dealing with them. As the archive box at the top of Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division shows, RoslynSKP has tried to move this article to a different name five times since January 2012 (including a move review request) - four of these attempts have been made since mid-September this year. While Jim shouldn't have used rollback here, it's not hard to see how such stubborn and disruptive behaviour would wear down other editors. The fact that RoslynSKP dismissed the results of all the move requests by saying that "these issues have not been addressed, just swept under the carpet." a couple of days ago says it all really: this is not constructive conduct, and suggests a complete inability to drop the stick and move on over this issue. This thread appears to be an attempt to change the battleground and distract attention away from their prolonged disruptive conduct. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nick-D your link regarding the carpet does not work. --Rskp (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while you're at it, could you please move Henry G. Chauvel back to Harry Chauvel for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just passing by ... Graham87 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nick-D on this. My view is that failure to achieve a positive result on one battleground (repeated RMs) has resulted in a move to a new battleground. At this rate, this is going to end up at ARBCOM and some editors are going to wish they hadn't escalated this. To deter continuation of this behaviour, a boomerang is probably in order. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with Nick-D's take on this. I had a few encounters with Rskp after I responded to a GOCE request for an article in the WWI scope. If the response I got from Rskp later is any example to go by, and judging by their behaviour at RM, then they have significant ownership issues with anything they edit. During the course of my copy edit of the article, they would systematically go back and effectively revert many of the changes I had made. Normally, that wouldn't be much of an issue as that's the nature of WP, but when the end result is more verbose and difficult to read than was afte the copy edit, it's moe than jus a little annoying. A later discussion on the material in the article, I posited an opinion, which was responded to in an unnecesarily dismissive fashion entirely non-conducive of a collegial environment. However, rather than edit war over it, I notified Jim Sweeney as he was a major contributor to the article and left it to them to hash it out. Crisco1942 subsequently protected the article to stop the ensuing edit war. This single interaction with Rskp soured my taste for future interactions and I have subsquently made a point of not taking up articles within the WWI scope that they've been involved in, which I find somewhat sad as I am Australian as they are. Rskp is a polific writer in WWI, particularly on the ANZAC contributions to the war effort and that is laudable, but their interactions with other editors is leaves much to be desired. Blackmane (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Jim Sweeney cut the Populations living on the battlefields subsection of the article after it had reached GA. Given that the article was about a wide stretch of territory I thought it was useful, but Jim Sweeney is a cutter. See also Occupation of the Jordan Valley, Capture of Damascus (1918). In one instance after only five hours he cut a quote because I hadn't got round to paraphrasing it. You have blinkers on. --Rskp (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comment which Blackmane took exception to was made after I had suggested leaving the subsection so readers could make up their own minds about whether the "Populations living on the battlefields" subsection was relevant as the GA reviewer had not seen a problem. Blackmane wrote" I highly doubt the removal of a largely unrelated and generally digressive section in this article will affect its GA status. It's not about interest, or lack thereof, which is the point, it's relevance" and I wrote "Yes, thank you for your work Blackmane. However, you did not do the GA review so your comments should be seen in that light." This comments were made here [6] when Jim Sweeney wanted the subsection cut. --Rskp (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge I've never had the misfortune of dealing with Rskp, but I am surprised to learn that this has been an ongoing problem for more than a year. I do think its time that this was escalated - by which I mean page protections and blocking - so the rest of us can work in peace. I agree with Peacemaker - this is gonna end up at arbcom sooner or later unless one or more of us man up and lay down the law such as it were. It's not pleasant (it never is) however that doesn't change the fact that it still needs to be done. And judging by this post, it needs to be done soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think people are starting to recognize the point of my first post (the one referred to as "snark"). The OP seems ot have a pretty serious history of problematic editing. In order to get his "preferred version" or at least one of his opponents potentially blocked, he used an inflammatory heading: "illegal use of...". This was designed to get immediate eyes, and immediate action in his favour. However, in doing so, he may have whipped out his giant AN boomerang. ES&L 11:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it is worth I have had numerous interactions with RoslynSKP over several years, including quite a few disagreements, so I am hardly an uninvolved editor here. That said I fully endorse Nick-Ds cmts as an accurate, considered and remarkably restrained summary of her behaviour and I think this complaint needs to be considered in this context. Further scrutiny, and potentially sanction, is needed here. Anotherclown (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I first interacted with Rskp quite about two years and tried to assist them to understand Wikipedia policies and generally help out. At first, I was very keen to help Rspk with their articles as I felt her work had the potential to go to featured status and wanted to help (I still think this, and I still want to help); however, because of the way in which Rskp has interacted with other editors, I have limited my involvement greatly over the past year because frankly working with them is not fun and quite stressful. A key part of working on Wikipedia is the ability to collaborate. That sometimes means compromising, accepting consensus (even when it goes against you), and moving on in the interests of progressing an article. It also means assuming good faith, maintaining a degree of friendliness and accepting that it isn't a case of "one editor against the world". I agree with Nick-D's summary, particularly in relation to WP:BATTLEGROUND. On a number of occasions I have witnessed this editor WP:EDITWARRING rather than seriously discussing the issues in a collaborative manner and attempting to gain consensus (for instance [7], [8], [9] as examples). When other editors attempt to discuss the issues, these attempts usually meet with frustration. If they disagree with Rskp, their talk page posts have on a number of occasions been dismissed as "personal attacks", at which point Rskp has refactored those editors' comments, essentially removing them for anyone to read (for instance this just today: [10]), and/or the intentions, actions or opinions of those in disagreement with Rskp are derided on Rskp's user page, which frankly borders on an attack page in my opinion. Further, efforts to come up with compromise solutions are greeted with responses using language that is not conducive to creating a collegiate editing environment. For instance, an attempt by myself to resolve one of the issues of contention on the Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division article (i.e. the issue of whether to use the term "Ottoman Empire" or "Turkey") is basically labelled as a conspiracy because a couple of editors happen to disagree with Rskp's interpretation. I will reiterate, I have no dog in that fight and frankly don't care what term is used, but I do want editors to stop constantly reverting and actually attempt to progress the article; that is what I would like to see from this whole episode across all the articles affected. Everyone take a step back, take a deep breath and find a way to collaborate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• AustralianRupert I am at a complete loss to understand your three links regarding attempting to gain consensus. They are in fact to other editors' reinstating Harry Chauvel twice and a change of file name, all of which stand. And your final link is to the personal attack made on the Talk:Anzac Mounted Division article which I identified as offensive and collapsed a couple of times. Then when reverted, I twice attempted to add the Remove Personal Attack tag, both of which have been cut. And remain cut. I thought when a personal attack was made on an editor, when I was insulted and disparaged, "is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done" and so I took steps to cut the comments. I really don't understand you at all. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• AustralianRupert I am also completely at a loss regarding your comments considering the very good working relationship we have been enjoying during our editing of the 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia), and there are many other editors with whom I have collaborated very successfully to improve articles and to get some to B-class and GA. --Rskp (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rskp, I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt until you called my intentions into question here: [11] I was trying to promote collaboration by seeking a compromise to one of the issues that had developed between you and Jim, but your "the lock step trio" comment essentially labels my efforts and anyone else's as being part of some conspiracy. That does not produce a collaborative editing environment and frankly, I took it to be a personal attack. I remain impressed with your articles, and the effort you have put into the Sinai-Palestine topic, but I remain concerned about your ability to collaborate. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AustralianRupert, you are right. That was not a well thought out comment on your contribution. I was unfortunately expressing my exasperation. For that I apologise to you. But really, it was the Ottoman Empire which was fighting during the Sinai and Palestine campaign. While I acknowledge that Turkey existed in the 13th century (I think) and was re-established after the war, but using Turkey during S&P can only be pejorative and POV. --Rskp (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I appreciate your apology. Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments On top of the snarking about the improper rollback, now I am being impugned, here on the Administrators' noticeboard. I thought this was supposed to be a place to go for resolution not to be subject to attacks. I have been amazed at the level of harrassment that I have been subject to during my editing of Wikipedia. I made one comment to do with the issue of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey here [12] In 1299 it might well have been the Turkish Empire, but the Anzac Mounted Division is about the First World War, when the country was the Ottoman Empire. Many english language publications refer to Turkey, its pejorative in this context, and POV. The fact that this was the second time the editor had made improper use of the rollback has gone completely unnoticed in the rush to impugn me. See here [13]. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the move of the Harry Chauvel article as soon as the Trove information was forthcoming, I immediately voted for a return to Harry Chauvel. I had been comparing Harry Chauvel with Edmund Allenby, Philip Chetwode et al and thought it was wrong to have him the only one with a nickname. The Trove survey alerted me to the extremely wide use of the name Harry Chauvel and my reaction was immediate here [14]--Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the personal attack and my several attempts to collapse and then to add a REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACKS tag, these have all been undone. This is despite the comments being insulting. They disparaged me, and according to Wikipedia "is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done". Why should I have to go to ANI what ever that is? Why is it not possible to add a personal attack tag without it being cut? This links to the final revert [15] Why is it not possible to collapse a personal attack?--Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The issue of the Anzac Mounted Division attempts to move the article are clearly on holiday for two months.
• However, as the article itself has developed into a battleground for the names of the division, I thought it was important to add the sources for all those names, so readers could clearly evaluate the situation. However, using the British official historian for the first and second mentions has been repeatedly undone in what I am beginning to think of an an OWNERSHIP issue. See discussion here [16] Now I see that the links are to the Australian War Memorial Web Site and the War Diary. Given the limited use War Diaries can be used as sources, I would have thought the British official history of the campaign a better source for these two versions of the name of the division. Further the editor refused to accept that Powles book formed part of the official New Zealand history, repeatedly cutting it. Even when it is clear that its the third volume of the official history. See discussion here [17] On top of that the citation to the Australian War Memorial's copy of the Australian official history's contents page has been repeatedly mangled. See discussion here [18] The other editor was under a misconception that the link was to a particular page in the history and not to the contents page. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Ownership. Given that these are among the few edits to the Anzac Mounted Division article that I have made, the amount of edit waring associated with them points very clearly to Ownership problems by the same editor who made the illegal rollback. But it appears any criticism of that editor is not to be heard. What about my work? What about all the articles that have been written or rewritten which have got to GA? Don't I have good standing? --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring [19] for related edit warring discussion. --Rskp (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake. There has been no discussion about the edit warring at this link. Its only been mentioned once during the rollback discussion, and twice during Nick-D's unsubstantiated contribution. --Rskp (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There continues to be no discussion of Jim Sweeney's dubious reporting of an edit war. After pointing out the problems with the links that editor provided to substantiate the report, nothing has been done, except for linking it to this discussion, which has not dealt with the edit war element at all. Further I am still waiting for some form of, at the very least, recognition of the extremely dubious nature of the series of posts in this subsection of the Administrators' noticeboard. The unsubstantiated impugning of my reputation should not continue to be ignored. --Rskp (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word is "impugn". The header you added made it look like Nick-D was the misspeller. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. --Rskp (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call for sanctions for impugning reputation

What can be done to correct these wrongs? --Rskp (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you're no doubt aware of there is some discussion below about opening and RFC/U on the matter. Outside the RFC/U there's the usual stuff: block editor(s), protect page(s), find consensus, etc. Its unlikely that this is gonna end soon, and its unlikely that either party's gonna walk away happy when the dust settles, but it will give the rest of us our course of action for how to approach the matter vis-a-vis your actions and the actions of the other editor(s). TomStar81 (Talk) 05:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you misunderstand me. I am talking only about the impugning of my reputation by editors here on the Administrators' noticeboard - just above. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 said above: "To my knowledge I've never had the misfortune of dealing with Rskp." What is this comment based on? Certainly all the other comments above are equally unsubstantiated. This impugns my reputation and requires expunging at least. --Rskp (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you're more concerned about your reputation than the editorial issues presented above reinforces my belief that interacting with you will be to my misfortune. People who can not accept responsibility for their actions, or their part in a larger action, bug me because any effort to correct the troublesome behavior in a civilized manner fails before it even starts due to the other editors inability to recognize a problem with the edits in the first place. As the first step to fixing any issue is recognizing that you bare some responsibility for the situation in the first place, and you have yet to reach that revelation, I am firmly convinced that any attempt we (by which I mean the community) make to act with the best interest of the article(s) in question will end up repeatedly undermined by you. Worse still for the rest of us will be the long and never ending string of insults and other unpleasant posts from you that we will have to deal with, which will likely take the form of either a long and drawn out temper tantrum or a stubborn refusal to admit any fault on your part by blaming everyone else for your shortcomings or failures with the material in question (in short, by being an ass). While I do find it admirable that you believe that you stand for something, on this site you need learn diplomacy and acceptance of those positions that run counter to your thinking, otherwise you'll end up back here again, and that will be your reputation whether you like it or not. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minute.

1. The reporting of the rollback was found to be perfectly correct and in fact the editor who made it was warned about it by Master Of Puppets. Mark Miller's spurious suggestion that I made the rollback was clearly dealt with by Master of Puppets also. See above.
2. Jim Sweeney's appeal to the Administrators' noticeboard regarding the edit war has been noted as being referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but has so far not made it there.

I simply have no idea what TomStar81 is talking about, and I suspect he doesn't either, because the number of articles which have been improved to B-class and GA, which I have been associated with, prove that I can and do collaborate with Wikipedia editors, all the time. So, I can't understand the attitude of the editors who have impugned me. They haven't even followed basic etiquette and have made personal attacks. These are banned on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks, where a personal attack is considered to be accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence. Serious attacks, (which have been made here), need serious evidence in the form of diffs and links e.g. TomStar81's most recent uninformed/misinformed edit which doesn't have one link or diff. In any case, all the links and diffs which have been added in this discussion don't substantiate any of the accusations. These need to be fixed. --Rskp (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

It's pretty obvious that the ensuing commentary has taken this into the realm of an RFC/U. Perhaps it would be preferable to put a pause on further additional commentary and reserve it for the RFC/U that will probably be inevitable? Should this be wrapped up as "no consensus that rollback was abused"? Blackmane (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're gonna move the discussion to a new venue then leave a link behind so we can find the new location for the talk. That's all I ask. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand your negative comments, considering the very good working relationship I have been enjoying with AustralianRupert, during our collaborative editing of the 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia). And there are many, many other editors with whom I have collaborated very successfully, to improve articles, and to get some to B-class and GA. --Rskp (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to participate in an RFCU. I have never worked with this person but the diffs and the discussion here bring to the unfortunate conclusion that there is a battleground attitude which must be stopped. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I've never done an RFCU, but as a coordinator for milhist I feel I've an obligation to the editors of the project to resolve this problem so we can all edit in peace (or what passes for it) here on the site. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Those diffs don't support any of the wildly imaginative personal comments directed at me. Nick-D's one diff does not work, he was informed of this on 3 November. AustralianRupert's first diff links to an edit by KylieTastic, the second to an edit by Sadads, the third to an edit by Anotherclown, the fourth relates to a personal attack on me which I cut. All the other diffs are either mine or Master of Puppets'. There is simply no evidence to support the attacks by "Cloud Cuckoo Land" editors, many of whom acknowledge they have never had any contact with me! What tha!!

Further, the reporting of the rollback was perfectly correct and in fact the editor who made it was warned about it by Master Of Puppets. Mark Miller's spurious suggestion that I made the rollback was corrected by Master of Puppets also. Further this is not the first time that an improper rollback has been made by the same editor. See here [20]

Nor is this the first time that I have been attacked here on the Administrators' notice board. See here [21] when the disruptive edits complete with diffs which I hoped would be investigated, were never even discussed. --Rskp (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rskp, to clarify, my links were not diffs to any specific users' edits, my links were to the articles' history pages showing all edits made to those pages in an attempt to show the general editing trends on those pages. I understand, though, that I could have been clearer in stating that, or in what I was attempting to show. Sorry for the confusion, please accept my apologies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that AustralianRupert. The first link was regarding the renaming of a file and I did attempt to discuss the matter here [22] on Widr's userpage. The second link to the Battle of Megiddo is interesting because the article is developing despite each of my contributions being strongly contested. I would suggest there is an ownership problem with another editor of this article. But I have been endeavouring to work around it in a cooperative fashion, rather than confront the editor. See link to the article's talk page where I asked a number of questions about the article. [23] Your third link to the Capture of Damascus can only be regarding the IP who deleted the article during the 95th anniversary because that anonymous editor thought there were too many long quotes. Having put the article out of Wikipedia the IP didn't even complete the process of getting the article accessed and so it languished for over a week. What particular behaviour of mine was so at fault here? Certainly not collaboration as the talk page of that article will verify, here [24] The fourth link is when the Remove Personal Attack tag was reinstated by me (Undid revision 579701134 by Abraham, B.S. (talk)This is the 2nd time tag reinstated. Insulting or disparaging an editor is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done). A quick look at Wikipedia policy regarding personal attacks will show that evidence should be produced when none was forthcoming. On a number of occasions I have attempted to replace offensive posts with the tag only to have the tag cut and the offensive posts reinstated. This is against Wikipedia policy. Or have it got it wrong? Can you tell me why you think that particular edit, is not a personal attack?

So although you claim I did not collaborate with other editors during the editing of the articles you linked to, if you had looked to the talk pages you would have found proof that in fact I did collaborate and discusss the issues. Its only the personal attack, which I thought was PERSONAL and that I therefore, had a right to delete, without discussing it with anyone else. I replaced the offensive comments with the RPA tag so the editor would understand why the post was deleted. Abrahams, BS did not have any right to cut the RPA tag as it wass not that editor who had been offended. --Rskp (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Wikipedia:Personal attacks reads "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. ... What is considered to be a personal attack?

• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. First offenses and isolated incidents Sometimes the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all."

Removal of text Policy shortcut: WP:RPA There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The (Personal attack removed) template can be used for this purpose." --Rskp (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why the unsubstantiated personal attacks by Nick-D, Blackmane, and TomStar81 on 30 October, remain on the Administrators' noticeboard? --Rskp (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Cause no one gives a shit about your whining? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If you're here on the board, then you've screwed up spectacularly, and because your reputation for bullshit has long since preceded you we have absolutely no interest in any of the crap you drag here. Just for once, this really is all about you, but it isn't about your misguided and fanciful 'victim role playing' ponzy scheme, its about how we can sanction you, or block you - or better yet, topic block you - for a long period of time so the rest of the people who actually do the stuff that you have staunchly refused to let them do through your multiple blatant and apparently proud to have infractions of the various guidelines and policies on site. To that end, then, please continue to contribute from the victim's perspective under these posts on this board so that when the RFC/U on you and your behavior is opened we can present plenty of evidence that the only way you'll grasp the message and/or take the hint is the hard way, which will give us admins and the coordinators the leeway to block you and/or revert your edits by consensus of the community as a whole. (PS: Thank you for proving me earlier point, specifically that" [w]orse still for the rest of us will be the long and never ending string of insults and other unpleasant posts from you that we will have to deal with, which will likely take the form of either a long and drawn out temper tantrum or a stubborn refusal to admit any fault on your part by blaming everyone else for your shortcomings or failures with the material in question (in short, by being an ass).") TomStar81 (Talk) 04:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 you acknowledge that you have never worked with me on any articles on Wikipedia, yet you imagine you can project into the future and devine my behaviour, without any apparent self-awareness that you are making an unsubstantiated personal attack. Is there any Administrator who can tell me why TomStar81's behaviour is not being criticised? And why the personal attacks in the posts by Nick-D, Blackmane, and TomStar81 on 30 October, remain on the Administrators' noticeboard? --Rskp (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the latter, because as we have said you have no sense of responsibility, and these are not attacks, they are facts, sadly. On the former, I presume to to take an educated guess as to how this will play out between you and the community because I was once in your shoes, having experienced WP:OWN the hard way, and like you I raised a fuss on any soapbox I could find - here, WP:AFD, Jimbo Wale's talk page, etc. Like you, I thought myself to be in the right, and like you I was disappointed when no one took my side, or defended my edits, or acknowledged my effort. And as a result of that experience I came to the conclusion that if everyone else was against me in the matter I must be doing something wrong, so I looked at the problem from another perspective, adjusted my course of action, made amends for my mistakes. If you are offended by the so-called personal attacks then I apologize, but I will not apologize for speaking my mind on the matter, and from where I sit the problem isn't us, its you. If you can approach this from a learning perspective then you will evolve as I did, and that will make you a valuable contributor, but if you stick to your guns then you will most likely lose. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they are facts, TomStar81, substantiate them. Show us your evidence for these serious claims. --Rskp (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For that I'd need to request clarification from you. Are you asking me to present evidence that I had WP:OWN issues, evidence that the alleged personal attack posts remain in the section, or evidence that the information above is based on facts related to your behavior? You're unclear on which of these you want, and I would rather not waste our collective time going down the wrong road to provide an answer from a misunderstood question. If you'd clarify, I would look into it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to "On the latter, because as we have said you have no sense of responsibility, and these are not attacks, they are facts, sadly." --Rskp (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Totally NPOV stalker I am a member of Milhist too. I have seen (but not been editorially involved) in the excellent Palestine campaign articles that you have contributed greatly to. You are a good ed. But I would respectfully urge you to re-read User:TomStar81s post. The editor has undergone a growth process through a similar issue in the past. I see it as compassionate advice. It happens to many of us. Reflect and engage in the spirit in which I think it was meant. Happy editing! Irondome (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TomSTar81 for your apology and thank you Irondome for drawing my attention back to this post. However, I can't understand why my correct identification of an improper rollback resulted in this outpouring of imaginative negative thoughts, mainly from editors who acknowledge they have not worked with me. The one thing I thought Wikipedia stood for was equality; equality of all editors, based on polite respect and reasoned evidence based argument; that if an editor felt they had been personally attacked they were entitled to use the RPA tag. --Rskp (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward?

We do stand for equality, in so far as policy dictates equality and neutrality one site. It goes without saying that in editing this site there must be moderation in all things or the purpose of the project will be lost. For bringing the rollback issue here you acted correctly, and when this post is closed the editors in question will be admonished for the their roles in the matter of the rollback, but as this is still active that has yet to occur because the posts here have uncovered issued beyond the rollback. That is what has lead to the ongoing (and at times uncivil) conversation here, which is what has brought us to this point: for us to act ALL parties (and that includes me as well) need to come here with an open mind, and accept that to a greater or lesser extent we all share some of the blame. Philosophically, this is an unjust website, since according to Plato in his work The Republic justice is, on some level, "...minding ones own business", yet the nature of the both humanity and Wikipedia demand consensus from groups of people, which of necessity means that we must involve ourselves in the business of others for the sake for the sake of peace among the collective whole.

With this in mind then when a problem reaches the pages of the administrators notice board, or the mediation cabal, or the arbitration committee is due in part to failure of both parties to back off a little and try to see the view from the other party's perspective. Having seen you capacity to forgive there is yet hope for all parties in this matter if the parties will sit down and discuss the issue with an open mind. Upon his enlightenment, Siddhārtha Gautama explained to his monk the concept of the middle path, one that leaves no one happy but everyone content. I learned to apply this thinking here, and it has served me well in that I know longer take the extreme views on either side, but work to see the wisdom in the positions presented by both sides. Having come to walk this path here I've found that it makes working with people on the site easier since you come into a discussion on conduct or the inclusion/exclusion of material or sources expecting that your work will be trimmed or removed to some greater or lesser extent, or in the matter of behavior that I am already partially to blame for a user registered compliant, and therefore accepting this I can work with all parties to find a solution that works for the parties, even if it comes at my expense.

As it relates to this page, and the matter at hand, your apology is a hopeful sign that we can resolve this matter here without the need for it to grow beyond the pages of the administers noticeboard. It appears to me that while it may have been the questionable use of the rollback tool by Jim Sweeney that initiated this discussion your fellow editors feel that there is more to this issue than a simple case of rolling back an edit made to an article. My question to you now, then, is that if we were to bring the parties here to discuss the edits, and if so would you be willing to work with them to find find a solution to the underlying issue(s) even if it means that the result would not necessarily be in your favor. Know that in the course of the discussion, the rollback issue you raised would be addressed as well. Are willing to make that leap of faith? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I would really like to know what this has all been about. --Rskp (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then for the sake of enlightenment and peace among the parties and articles privy to this section let us begin our journey here, accepting that no one involved in this quagmire has acted with the best interest of the community in mind. In a review of the section as a whole I make the following findings as it relates to the discussions above:

• On the matter of the articles in question the underlying issue is not editor conduct per se, but a disagreement over the content in or pertaining to the articles that has resulted in editors taking an increasingly hawkish approach to each other, which in turn has stalled the process of consensus by rendering any edit by the involved parties in these articles to be suspicious in nature. This in turn has lead the editors in question to alienate other participants and to assume a cold war-ish wheel war mentality in the articles. As it is unimportant to the matter at hand, the issue of who started the chain of events is irrelevant, and therefore we need to seek a solution to the issue that will leave everyone content - not happy, mind you, but content - so as to allow for the article's development to continue peacefully. Specifically, the article mentioned are the Harry Chauvel and ANZAC Mounted Division, with the articles Occupation of the Jordan Valley and Capture of Damascus (1918) mentioned in passing.
• On the matter of Rollback use, the allegation is that editor(s) are misusing the tool by rolling back additions to or subtractions from the articles in question that are not considered to be test edits or vandalism. As this matter falls within the scope of RBK it will be looked at as a matter of improper use, and if the findings warrant actions will be taken against the parties involved in a manner consistent either with an agreement reached here or in accordance with established guidelines and policies on site.
• On the matter of party participation, editors are reminded that we are not here to assess blame or seek compensation, but to work together in order that a solution can be found that we can agree to abide by with regards to content.

Having laid out these points, I now ask if the editors involved in this matter both here and in the article spaces are willing to work together in this section to find a solution, and if so would you individually be willing to agree to a status quo ante bellum where by no involved editor works on the articles identified above until an agreement is reached here on the best way to resolve the issues in the article? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I thought a status quo ante bellum was already in place regarding the Anzac Mounted Division. The Damascus article needs some quotes to be paraphrased which I haven't got round to yet as I've been working on operations a year earlier in 1917. See the talk page for this discussion. Is there something else? But I have no idea what the issue with the Occupation of the Jordan Valley article is. --Rskp (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I mentioned the Occupation regarding demands to paraphrase or cut quotes. See the talk page. --Rskp (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• TomStar81 I was under the impression that the rollback issue was sorted here User talk:Jim Sweeney#Rollback? The Harry Chauvel article was an issue which I was not directly involved with but has been sorted by an Admin. The Talk:Capture of Damascus (1918)#Copyright violations issue was identified by a third party and I believe that is no longer an issue as the potential copyright problems have been resolved. Same with Talk:Occupation of the Jordan Valley#Over use of quotes was a concern over copyright and the extensive use of quotes. But I am glad to see that Roslyn has said there is status quo ante bellum in place regarding the ANZAC Mtd Division article. There has also been mention of cutting information populations living on a battlefield, see Talk:Battle of Sharon this was not me acting alone but a community consensus, which Roslyn had difficulty accepting. It also pleasing to see that Roslyn has identified what is a personal attack, and may stop making them. This is a personal attack and as its in an edit summery it can not be recanted of struck out [25] and here Talk:Raid on Nekhl#Wikipedia: Disruptive Editing adding a Wiki link and a couple of words is not disruptive. But I am all for moving forward that's why until now I have not been involved in this discussion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See [26] status quo ante bellum in operating 3 November and here [27] on the talk page. --Rskp (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that we were on first name terms but as it appears we are, Jim, regarding personal attacks, yes I will in the future, ignore them - considering them exercises in creative writing. It does, however, seem a shame when Wikipedia purports to be a place where editors are polite to one another, that these attacks are sanctioned and indeed practiced even here. --Rskp (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Jim, I've gotten wrapped up in work, it'll take me another day to read through and get up to speed with your comments here, but thanks for the reply and your willingness to participate. Now I've got to go shower and hit the sack cuz I gots to be up early tomorrow for more fixing the house work. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the status quo just could not last [28]. TomStar81 suggest you also read Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division along with the above comments.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fellas, a white peace doesn't mean a cold war, it means nobody messes with the article(s) in question until all parties work out an agreement they can live with (even if it is a reluctant agreement). I am still reading through the material, and now with the new material, I'm gonna need a little more time yet. Please be patient... TomStar81 (Talk) 07:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins required

So, who are the admins willing to monitor the Austrian Economics topic-space and issue warnings/sanctions? The problems with this topic space were so serious that they warranted general sanctions, but since the general sanctions have been put in place, only a single editor has been sanctioned and that only happened because an uninvolved editor (me) filed an AN/I report. It's all fine and dandy to say a topic-space is under generation sanctions, but if we don't have admins to patrol this topic space and nothing changes, it's meaningless. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since they were community passed sanctions, the community can modify them. Not all article probation requires an admin to place an initial notification, the purpose of which is to ensure the editor is aware of the sanctions, and afterwhich they can be sanctioned by an admin for any violation of them. It might be a good idea to change it so that admin warnings are not required. You could look at the Men's rights movement probation for verbiage. It requires sanctions to be done by admins, but not notices themselves. Once all involved parties are notified, if uninvolved admins aren't actively looking over for violations, I'd suggest that any party who detects a vio take it to ANI. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the change above, editors can no longer issue notifications. Instead, an admin will be required to issue notifications. So who are the admins willing to patrol this topic space? The only admin to actually enact a sanction has just stated that they are not interesting in admining this topic-space.[29] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly crazy. We need to reopen the discussion. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen it for what reason, that the closure is incorrect or that more administrators need to patrol the pages subject to sanctions? I don't get it. If you have a problem with the closure, Doug, you should take it up with TParis. As for the other, as we all know, no administrator is required to use the tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong in the close, I see something entirely wrong in the proposal itself. But it's not my place to supervote. I think that "only administrators may warn editors" is a bad idea to start with. If you want to overturn the proposal, I suggest a new vote along the lines of "Ok, we were a bit silly with our ideas, lets go back to the standard 'anyone may warn.' (no offense Bbb23).--v/r - TP 19:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TP, I'm not in the least offended. I disagree that there's any "standard" way of dealing with these kinds of community-based sanctions. However, I've said over and over that I don't care much how this is done. I made a proposal but I mentioned repeatedly alternate proposals that would be acceptable (to me). My principal goal was clarity, so editors and admins know what they can and can't do with these sanctions. ArbCom may be able standardize dealing with discretionary sanctions, but it's highly unlikely the community will ever do so. So, there are two other (reasonable) possible proposals: (1) any admin, involved or not, can issue a warning or (2) any editor can issue a warning. In particular, if we were to change to #2, I would want editors to issue a standard template, whether it be the one currently in place for these sanctions or one more similar to the ArbCom warnings (I prefer those myself). In that way, although an editor's motivation might be suspicious, at least they couldn't create their own warning language. In either alternate, the issuer must log the notification.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this point correctly, the issue is not who may "warn" in the sense of informing an editor of the GS. I understand the issue to be who may log a warning on the GS page as a precondition for an Admin-issued block, without going to the usual ANI or other process. There's a log of every informational warning in the talk page histories, so I don't understand why there's particular concern about informational notices. The formal notice which can precede a block seems like it only makes sense if it comes from an Admin, per the close of this AN. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer "A Quest For Knowledge"'s question (as I see it and correct me if I'm wrong): Admins do not necessarily have to patrol pages. If they see troublesome issues arising at a noticeboard (WP:BLP, WP:RSN, WP:NPOV, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, etc.) and are made aware of the community sanctions, they can do something. Complaining to an admin who has put on the sanctions or who has commented on behavior in a specific article also, I assume, would be ok. User:Carolmooredc talk 19:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'standard method' for sanctions, being that community sanctions is one of the topic areas I actually do work often enough (see Abortion, Men's Right's, US Election 2012, ect) is that an editor must be notified/warned that sanctions exist before an administrator may action on them. This notification/warning (in the informal sense) is generally carried out with a {{Uw-probation}} which carries the notice "In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation" and "The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you." Any editor may give this message. It is logged on the community sanctions page because administrators need to know that editors are aware of the sanctions before acting. Instead of forcing us to search talk page history, or anywhere else an editor may have been given the heads up, a log is kept of "Ohh hey, this person has been given a heads up that article probation exists". Now, when sanctions say "after a warning", they do not mean that editors get a freebie before getting blocked. It means that editors were given a heads up that sanctions existed and that the risk of a block is higher. If anyone doesn't understand the difference there, feel free to ask me for clarification. No editor has a 'right' to a formal warning by an administrator before a block. However, it would be unfair to block someone who didn't know they were entering an area where administrator's wield larger sticks. That's what the 'warning' in sanctions refer to when they say 'if after being warned' and when we warn folks on their talk page. "WARNING: ADMINS HAVE HUGE STICKS ON THIS PAGE!" is all folks get. That's why I think this proposal is silly. It doesn't take an administrator to tell someone that they are entering a contentious topic area with general sanctions. It takes a friendly editor. If we only allowed administrators to notify/warn editors of sanctions then why are none of the community sanctions or arbcom sanctions pages locked to sysop-only? Bottom line: The 'warning' is a warning about sanctions, not a warning about an editor's behavior.

  My closure of this proposal was purely on consensus, because clearly if I had supervoted it would've gone the other way.--v/r - TP 20:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have just updated WP:General sanctions to add what I have just described above. I believe this is already de jure protocol so I've just codified it.--v/r - TP 20:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And on the other hand Editors who clearly have been a party to ANIs that led to community sanctions in an area or or clearly involved in discussion of those sanctions on one or more articles do not neccessarily need a talk page warning because it is assumed they know. Unless it's left by someone who doesn't know the editor knows about it, obviously. ;-) User:Carolmooredc talk 20:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page warning is to prove that they've been notified. Whether that happens on their talk page or if it happens somewhere else, as long as they themselves are explicitly told that sanctions exist and that explicit notification is logged. Otherwise, whether or not they were 'warned'/notified can be wiki-lawyered. Keep in mind, Carol, that even Arbcom leaves notices on user's talk pages when Arbcom cases are closed and then logs that notice no matter how much participation a user had in the case.--v/r - TP 20:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's as "standard" as you say (I looked at several), and I disagree with the change to WP:General sanctions for the same reason. I'm bowing out of this. As far as the Austrian economics sanctions notification is involved, unless there is some clarity I can live with, I will not monitor changes to WP:AEGS; nor will I sanction anyone. Other administrators/editors can deal with it without me, I'm sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, better safe than sorry reminding specific individuals then probably is the best approach, even if they've been involved in 4 or 5 threads where it's been mentioned. BBB23, thanks for your patience in hanging in there as long as you did. User:Carolmooredc talk 16:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{hat|NAC: Closing again. Wrong venue, not a matter for administrators. Please express your concerns on WP:VPP or directly to the WMF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)}} {{hat|1=This will only be a concern if they start selling sausage inna bun. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)}} {{archive top|Reopen when admins get free t-shirts. John Reaves 02:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

Seriously? Advertisements for the "Wikipedia store" are now displayed in lovely banner ad format when reading or editing pages? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a matter for the administrators noticeboard? Take it to WP:VPM or something. Legoktm (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Legoktm: This noticeboard has been considered a general discussion noticeboard for a very long time. It's certainly more watched and used than an obscure village pump. In this case, these points are largely irrelevant, though: local administrators are in control of the local site interface. This noticeboard is a perfectly fine place to discuss whether we should have ads. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the community are in control of the local site interface; and admins merely the functionaries who carry out the community's wishes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the community? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS answers that question nicely. I would like to hear your answer to Andy Mabbett's question. --04:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure who I'm addressing, but the actual answer is that various parts of the site interface come from various places. Most of the user interface comes from the MediaWiki software, which is controlled via developer consensus, though individual local administrators (including myself) have also made substantial customizations via the MediaWiki message namespace. The banners themselves largely come from m:Special:CentralNotice, if they're not local banners. You can read more at Wikipedia:Software notices, a page I created in 2008. Let me know if you have additional questions. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If people don't want AN to be for general discussion like this, then perhaps an Administrators' Noticeboard/Discussion is in order ? Sportsguy17 16:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank

There certainly could be worse things than an ad for our own non-profit organization offering discounts on our own products. Until the banner says "I'm Lovin' It", I don't consider it much an ad. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[30] -- KTC (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ad is spammy and distasteful and should be removed ASAP. We are an encyclopedia, not a discount outlet. It is not our business to be selling stuff and I personally don't want to be associated with "academic" projects who advertise in this sort of manner. ThemFromSpace 20:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The banner doesn't particularly bother me. I actually think it's kind of neat there are Wikipedia scarves. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not great, but that "X" in the upper right hand corner takes care of it pretty well ;) Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I not got it?! Is it some admins equivalent of the GUM (department store) a la 1955, where the WP elites can buy otherwise unavailable to the community luxuries such as soap, metal false teeth and Max Bygraves records? I think we should be told. Irondome (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's displayed for US only, per the post that KTC linked to (but anyone worldwide will get the discount, currently).

If the ad were displayed to all readers, it might be worth grumbling about, but it's only displayed to logged-in users, which seems entirely reasonable. –Quiddity (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an issue with it at all. My old uni as far back as 81 was selling scarves, bags, mugs etc. I see an analogy. My post was satirical, and I agree with User:Guy Macon that the posting here was arguably problematic in board choice. From the UK, I would like to see the stuff on offer. It is hardly a commercial Mcinvasion, as someone mentioned above. Irondome (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When someone posts something that is completely off-topic (administrators have no power to remove the ad in question, and thus this does not need administrator attention) answering them only encourages more off-topic material. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy Macon. Local administrators are most certainly empowered to suppress the ad in question, either directly by editing the site-wide JavaScript or CSS pages or indirectly by requesting that a Meta-Wiki administrator disable the banner. I'm not sure why you think this discussion is off-topic. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I go by what the top of this page says is and is not appropriate for posting here. If English Wikipedia administrators are allowed to request that a Meta-Wiki administrator disable the banner and ordinary editors are not, that would make it on-topic. I believe that anyone can make such a request. If English Wikipedia administrators are authorized to decide that the ad should be removed, that would make it on-topic. If something is made possible by the software but admins are not allowed to do it, that doesn't count; making an AN request asking an admin to do something that no admin is authorized to do is off-topic. Perhaps I am wrong, but I was under the impression that if an admin were to decide that there those ads should not be there and suppress them, he would be in trouble. Of course he could seek community consensus, but so could any editor.

Earlier, when someone else posted an opinion that this is off-topic you wrote "This noticeboard has been considered a general discussion noticeboard for a very long time. It's certainly more watched and used than an obscure village pump." I didn't say anything then, but I do not believe that you have a consensus for such a radical change to the function of AN, and if you have consensus for it, you should change the instructions at the to of the page.

Ignoring a certain amount of off-topic material as long as it doesn't become excessive or disruptive is one thing. Deciding that everything is on-topic and correcting anyone who says that something is off-topic and should be taken elsewhere is quite another. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: paragraph 1: administrators are definitely empowered. Take a look at what happened with VisualEditor (I think the relevant discussion took place on this very noticeboard) for a recent example. Local administrators largely (though not exclusively) control the site interface. I wrote a bit more above. (By the way, can you link to the community consensus to run these banners? ;-)

Re: "radical change": this isn't very radical. And I'll point out again that it was a pretty experienced Wikipedian who opened the thread here, in addition to another pretty experienced Wikipedian (me) saying that AN is a general noticeboard. It's possible we're both mistaken, but perhaps it's the other way around?

I don't think anyone suggested that anything and everything is suddenly on-topic. Though if the discussion location really gets you so hot and bothered that you want to re-locate it, okay, just leave a pointer and be neat about it. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{archive bottom}} {{hab}}

Unarchiving this section to properly address some of the incorrect comments here. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "scarf" banner certainly looks like an ad to me. I can't see how anyone could say that it's not an advertisement. We should discuss whether such ads are appropriate here. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see how this is any different than the fundraising banners. It can be easily dismissed if it is really bothering you that much. Of course every time we have a fundraising drive a thread like this pops up as well. Yes, if we had a massive RFC we could decide not to do this. the chances of that getting done before the current sale is over are basically zero. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fundraising banners aren't trying to sell anything. I imagine most editors don't object to this particular advertisement, but it's a reasonable topic to discuss, I think. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{hab}}

Beyond My Ken: Perhaps you could focus on the substantive issues in a thoughtful reply rather than simply trying to close the discussion? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to close down discussion on this topic, I'm merely pointing out what you ought to know already, that this is not the appropriate place to have the discussion. This is a 'community matter, not one for admins, and this is the administrators' noticeboard.

Could someone please close this inappropriate discussion for the third time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, it has morphed into something that actually is on-topic: MZMcBride's claims about what is and is not off-topic. In my opinion, it should be left open until that meta-issue is resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, Guy Macon:

This has been a general noticeboard for a very long time.

In any case, if you're really concerned with only the discussion's location, you can move the discussion and leave a redirect. We do this all the time with articles. Collapsing a reasonable discussion and shouting "wrong venue" is, um, unkind and probably harms the attempt at having an honest discussion about whether these types of ads are appropriate.

Perhaps it also wouldn't be unreasonable to extend a bit of good faith that the experienced admin (and apparently also a checkuser) who opened this discussion can be trusted enough to post here, presumably having exercised some judgment in deciding where to post. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. According to m:CentralNotice/Calendar, the proper person to contact is User:Meganhernandez. :) Legoktm (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I was hoping for some kind of hipster irony with a banner proclaiming "we can pickle that!" or some kind of artisan, lovingly hand-crafted encyclopedia knit baseball cap with a logo. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And WP logo brass key fobs, lovingly created by the famous Blind monks of Prague. Damn. Seriously. is this discussion really viable in its present form? I suggest closure. This may be a complex issue. It should be redrafted and posted on meta, maybe. Irondome (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. You are harshing my mellow. Forget the blind monks and all hail the Monks of Doom. Represent. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to have voiced myself: "Community"-Me is against that nonsense! Cheers, "Community"-Others, OAlexander (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This one-of-a-kind Wikipedia sweater was handcrafted out of ten years worth of Jimbo's own belly button lint." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose slipping this into the rotation would be right out? —rybec 19:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has at least nostalgic qualities. OAlexander (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support an admin to block the advertisement technically if possible. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I the only one in WP:the community to post at User:Meganhernandez? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral. There are some good thing about it potentially such that if people on campus start wearing Wikipedia clothes stating that you to can edit, it may increase contributions. Than there is the issue of it being advertising. Maybe a RfC would be the next step? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a discussion to be had here, but as with at least 4 other people have said, I don't get why this is at AN which as is common for discussions being held at clearly the wrong venue, seems to be discouraging participation. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked User:DrMicro for 48 hours for extensive copyright infringement as discussed here [31]. This user has a history of not responding to talk page comments and edit a lot. They have made nearly 20,000 edits nearly all of which are to article space since 2006.[32]. As I maybe deemed to be involved I have no concerns if any other admin overturns this block. Do to the extent of the issues I would propose an indefinite block of this user unless they agree clearly to clean up this mess. Otherwise I am looking for people interested in helping. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway we can revert all 20,000 of his edits by bot? Many I would image are to all. All 20 or so random edits I have looked at so far are entirely copy and pasting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember, some two years ago there was a user with 10k's of COPYVIOs (in sports IIRC; could not find user name; was blocked and was asked for cooperation). A bot soon blanked the possibly offending pages, adding a template saying like "Must be CR checked before showing the content again" (and put them in a todo/category of course). Then there was a manual sweep, and some smart bot logic too (so the lowhanging rotten fruit was catched botwise). -DePiep (talk) 07:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that there are some methods to help. Did issues stretch back these many years though? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was an ad hoc action, with new bot tasks. Deleting the offences was performed very soon (for it was endangering the whole WP project: threat of expensive COPYVIO violations, by US law). I guess high wp burocrats were following & taking action too (maybe like a off-site botrequest), you could inform them too (if not already done). The User was asked to help by identifying problematic pages, I remember to little effect. Indef blocking maybe not needed if the user understands, helps, & changes behaviour. Anywway, for later concern. -DePiep (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're thinking of User:Darius Dhlomo, whose many thousands of copyright violations spanned around five years. See Mass blanking of copyright violations in the Signpost for how it was handled. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (DD had 160k edits). Having seen WP:CCI today, it looks like more sweeps are started ~every month (mostly <1000 pages) and a routine has been established. Initiatives to be expected from CCI. -DePiep (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is terrible. The best thing I can think of is to have a bot restore all articles to the state they were in before this users first edit, and add the page to a hidden category. They will undoubtedly need to be checked by hand, and a lot of work since on the articles is probably useless now as derivative work. At the risk of kicking in open doors, I endorse the involved block. 62.140.132.10 (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth, I am uninvolved and endorse the block. To be honest, I think it should be made indef unless the editor in question can provide some explanation of why a good percentage of their edits appear to be out-and-out copyvios. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Generally stuff like this goes to WP:CCI for the cleanup. And I think an indef would be appropriate. --Rschen7754 09:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have added this case to the requests here Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After having reviewed the issues, I've endorsed the block and shifted to indefinite, pending CCI clerks processing the request. At present, 48 hours is too short to guarantee that the issues wouldn't re-occur, at least absent any comments and commitments from the user. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CCI opened: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/DrMicro. I've marked off the three articles Doc James reverted and left a note on the talk pages. I recommend removing the reviewer and autopatrolled flags. MER-C 12:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both flags removed by KTC--Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is very discouraging. As someone who has worked on cleaning up CCIs, it is a LOT of work. Adding another one with 20K edits is going to add many person-months of work. Which is not an argument against adding, but a comment that we need to find out how this is happening. I looked at one edit here How can it happen that 1800 bytes of text are added to an article as established as History of Malaria and it doesn't raise a red flag? Yes, we need to clean up these edits, but it takes longer to clean than up than it did to make them in the first place, so we need a better process of detecting these earlier.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Sphilbrick, I just pasted the first paragraph of that 1800 bytes of text into Google and it returned two pre-existing documents containing large tracts of identical text. I'm no computer genius but couldn't a smart person design a simple tool that does what I just did for all recent changes (or those of a certain size), and then highlight in watchlists any edits that contain strings of words identical to strings pre-existing on Google (and maybe GBooks)? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Google's terms of use, that's not as easy as it might seem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it can't be done? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think not easily. My memory has grown fuzzy on the details, but there were issues with the copyright bots that populate WP:SCV (which so needs help! pitch in, everyone! :D) a few years back when bots were blocked from searching for matches to knew articles. We resolved this one financially with the assist of the WMF. I don't know if that grease is still needed, but whether it is or not there could be issues if we tried stepping up the bot searches to match every edit of a certain size. New articles is a significant enough load on a search engine. Recent changes might be more than they can or would be willing to handle. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 11 (February 2012) has some information and links to User talk:Coren/Archives/2011/December#Whoooo!!! and User talk:Coren/Archives/2011/August#CSBot down. I believe that the WMF still pays Yahoo for searches run by the copyvio tools, but the situation with Google might have changed. Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. We could pay for the infrastructure that would allow us to scour Google's web and book caches without negatively impacting their core business. We volunteers may be free but there are other things we'd rather do than manually sort these things out after the fact. Neither the volunteer community nor the donors would begrudge WMF spending money on this. Is this something you would be interested in pushing up to Wikimedia decision-makers, Moonriddengirl? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, that would almost certainly require the grants processes - m:Grants:Start - which are overseen by community committees. The question is which stream of grantmaking would review it, and that would be determined in part by how much money it might actually cost and who would spearhead it in the community. If realistically it cost under $30,000.00, that would be the easiest avenue to go, as it could quality for an Individual Engagement Grant. If it is more, it would require an Annual Plan Grant, which requires that it be sponsored by an affiliate organization (new or existing, like a chapter). We would need to start with somebody who can make the bot (like User:Madman, maybe?) figuring out whether it's possible and probably estimating the server load before approaching Google or Yahoo! or whoever to find out if it would be permitted. It would also probably smooth acquiring funding if there was a good show of support for the idea and for implementing it. It's a hard sell to ask somebody to invest significant money to flag problems that nobody will touch. :/ So, practicalities may matter, particularly when funding requests compete for community support. Speaking of server load - not being particularly technical myself, I wonder what it would do to our own processing speed. Anybody technical here with an idea? If we had a bot check every significant new text addition to an article against a search engine? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It seems clear to me that this can be done, technically. It also seems to be something we should do, to lighten the burden on volunteers, and protect the WMF from charges of negligence if they have a relatively simple method to highlight copyvios and the money to implement it but choose not to. I'll bow out at this point. I'd appreciate it if you could draw the attention of a relevant WMF decision-maker to this discussion though, Moonriddengirl, in your community liaison role, and perhaps mention here whom you have alerted. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"lighten the burden on volunteers"? Who do you think is going to respond to all of these flagged copyright concerns? :/ (I can draw this to the attention of staff, but I'm afraid that it won't help. There is no "relevant WMF decision-maker" for something like this; as I mentioned above, these are community-governed processes.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I and other recent changes volunteers will delete them as they arise. I patrol Recent changes/Medicine. If this tool had been in place we would have picked up this current mess years ago. Please forgive my ignorance, I've had very little to do with development here. Assuming we can establish community support for such a tool, what is it about this proposed tool that determines it must be developed in a volunteer-driven project, and not simply taken on by the WMF's development team? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this might actually increase the burden on volunteers, given the tremendous backlogs we already have in copyright cleanup and the small number of people who work them. I say that having spent years as one of the most active volunteers in that area. That doesn't mean I don't support it, although I'm unsure of its technical feasibility, but I don't think this is going to lighten anybody's burden, really - although it would be lovely if it could prevent new recurrent problems. We've only just now gotten the copyright problems board listing known and identified issues from such a tremendous backlog that it no longer functioned into working again. We've had articles sitting blanked literally for months waiting for attention.

The WMF's development team has specific assigned tasks and roles, given them in furtherance of Board directives. wmf:Vote:Narrowing Focus is the Board Directive instructing the WMF to focus on the following priorities:

• Visual editor — creating a first-rate editing experience for users that no longer requires complex document markup
• Editor engagement — finding and developing ways to engage new users
• Mobile (Wikipedia Zero + mobile engineering) — enhancing the user experience for users who use mobile devices
• Funds dissemination committee and grant-making — improving the funds dissemination processes to be more transparent, democratic, and accountable

Staff are heavily engaged at the moment in these. What you're talking about here does not seem to fit into any of the priority work areas, so it's not really an easy matter of taking staff off of assigned duties that are and shifting them over to a new project. As I said, I have no problem mentioning this to staff, but I suspect it will take community initiative to make this take off. Shifting the focus of developer time is no small thing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. It sounds like it'll need to come from the board, then, if the WMF is going to do it. It'll need your unreserved enthusiastic approval before anyone on the board would take the proposal seriously so I won't pursue it with them. I'll speak to some tech volunteers and see if they can bolt something together just for Recent changes/Medicine - that might be light enough to not perturb Google and will give us a sense of its usefulness and effect on workload. I'll let you know if anything comes of it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we block editors like this or educate editors like this before the problem is ongoing for years it will save work overall. That means more editors can work more on content work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is undoubtedly true. One way we could do this better is to have more people helping at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations, which is currently maintained by a handful of stalwarts. This morning, through that list, I found a contributor with 200 edits who seems to have copied content into every article he's touched. I've cleaned some and flagged others and given him the {{uw-copyvio-new}}. Anyone who wants to help avoid cases like the one we're dealing with now would be very welcome to join in there. It will not find all of them, but it finds quite a few. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I support lifting the block. I think we've overreacted. Maybe DrMicro will help us tidy things up. If not, then they can be blocked if they continue to violate our policies and guidelines. This is a punitive block and not a preventative one, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't seen an unblock request yet. If the user can help mopping things up, then it seems, under close supervision, a good idea. But lets not start discussions on unblocking before we hear what they have to say. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Keep blocked-- previous warning in 2010 [33] and 2012 [34] along with recent posts on his talk page indicating he doesn't understand copyvio. Bios, why would you advocate lifting the block when we haven't even heard from him? As far as I can tell, I have never encountered this editor in a medical article I edit, and I don't know, consider the previous warnings, that we are yet in a position to know what to do about the block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • They've given me a productive response before when I was working on malaria. I assume good faith that they might pitch in and help, now that they see how serious the issue is. Like I said, I think it's a punitive block. They might be a wonderfully productive editor from here on out. If they aren't, then we can re-block very very easily. The risk vs. reward ratio tells me to unblock. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't a punitive block, it is a prophylactic block. I am likely to be supportive of an unblock if the editor expresses a desire to help, which I think is possible. Oppose to unblock prior to hearing from the editor.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course it's punitive. They've expressed a willingness to help. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. They have asked that I restore their edits and referred to what I did as vandalism.[35] They are still arguing that their edits are okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question for admins and CCI folks: many of his edits were to articles/stubs he created, and some of his sources are behind paywall (meaning, can only be checked by those who have journal access). Considering the magnitude of the violations, that we don't have enough resources to check all of this, and that we have a similar problem occurring with student editing where we can't check sources because they are behind paywall or textbooks we don't have access to (although the WMF continues to deny this problem, based on faulty analysis, limited only to sources not behind paywall)-- is a mass AFD of all articles he created a possibility? Then we could see how much is left, and determine if we have the resources to check the remainder, or consider rollback on the remainder. Many of his edits are to bio/germy stubs; unless a good reason appears not to, I suggest that mass AFD will solve a big portion of the CCI work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I would prefer some form of soft deletion like blanking or reverting pending a copyright check over AfD, but that should be up for wider discussion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On many of his articles, he may be the only substantial editor, so that if you revert, it's the same as AFD ... I think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, in those cases I would prefer blanking the article with a banner indicating the article is pending a copyvio check. That makes the task to check the copyvio status managable. It's big enough as it is. If it would require an admin to check, this task will never be completed. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumptive and summary deletion is permitted in cases like these per Wikipedia:Copyright violations. MER-C 02:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Continued support of block DrMicro still does not appear to understand. He considers my removal of the copyright issues on pages he has edited to be vandalism as per [36]. Of course the reason why I have previously rewritten the content on pages that I have seem him edit was that it was way overly technical. And now the reason for that becomes clear, much of it was simply copied and pasted from the sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Good block, and fully support the escalation to an indef. Users who create messes to be cleaned up need to be stopped. Suggest using the "nuke" feature to just remove any pages created entirely by this user. They can always be restored if any of them are found not to be copyvios. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block and trout Biosthmors: Editor knew exactly what he was doing with the disruption he caused. Wizardman 23:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support block, especially in light of the talk page post Doc James highlights. Indefinite blocks are not bans. It isn't punitive to prevent somebody editing until we are sure that they understand and will comply with our Terms of Use, not when they can be shown to have violated them repeatedly. policy says, "Contributors who have extensively violated copyright policy by uploading many copyrighted files or placing copyrighted text into numerous articles may be blocked without warning for the protection of the project, pending satisfactory assurances that infringement will not continue". While I don't often support blocks prior to warnings anyway, Sandy Georgia notes that this gentleman has had them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support block as regrettably necessary. While I don't believe that this editor is intentionally doing harm, the harm that he is doing is nevertheless significant—and appears to persist despite warnings. Biosthmors, though I appreciate your willingness to extend every benefit of the doubt, DrMicro appears unwilling or unable to accept and understand the way that his edits have been problematic, and there seems to be no evidence that this problem wouldn't recur going forward. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support indef as preventive - Several previous warnings plus their User Talk comments give no confidence that their COPYVIO problems won't continue, much less that they will be productively involved in the cleanup. Agree 100% with Wizardman. Zad68 14:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll ask Wizardman to explain the trout, I guess (unless you're up for it because I don't get it), but might you explain that? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef. The CCI is uncovering multiple serious problems (as if the ones mentioned here weren't enough already) and DrMicro shows no recognition that he has caused a problem let alone willingness to help clean up his mess. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:General disclaimer, would an admin please delete (or insert "not" into) this sentence: "We are working on ways to select and highlight reliable versions of articles"? Cheers. It may have been true in 2004 but it's certainly not the case now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be a bit above our pay grade. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am not so sure anyone but WMF staff or even the legal department should be modifying the disclaimer. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had a look, if you actually go to edit the page this pops up:

Wikipedia:General disclaimer is permanently protected from editing, as it is a page which should not be edited significantly for legal or other reasons. Substantial changes should be proposed on the disclaimer's discussion page, here; such changes will be made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or when it has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.

So apparently that is how to get this done. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Beeblebrox. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team? I think it's still a bit active? I notified them. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Enric. Version 1.0 is less unreliable than en.Wikipedia.org but it is not and under its present model never will be reliable. Our FAs are not reliable. -Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the request at Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer#Edit request November 2013. Although it might feel like hallowed ground, this is an obvious, necessary and uncontroversial request, so I'd appreciate some action. The present wording is misleading in a very fundamental way. It implies we actually care enough to do something about the unreliability of our articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general disclaimer isn't legal text and doesn't require Wikimedia Foundation (legal) staff to edit. That said, I think it would make sense to centralize all of these disclaimers on Meta-Wiki at some point. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The text in question has now been removed by Killiondude. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Would an administrator please redirect these pages to Henry H. Kendall, where the firm is covered. This request is per the instructions on the protected from creation pages. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing create protection on either of those titles. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: It was probably a title blacklist issue. Graham87 08:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both contain soft hyphens after the "y" and "m". 46.233.72.112 (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This website error has happened over a dozen times in the last hour:

Request: GET http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heaven_Below&action=edit, from 10.64.32.107 via cp1054 cp1054 ([10.64.32.106]:3128), Varnish XID 2255588155 Forwarded for: 4.71.223.168, 208.80.154.75, 10.64.32.107 Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:05:38 GMT --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Problem resolved since yesterday. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently requested the IP Block exemption because I run VPN software on my computer. I was granted the user right. I was told not to edit from an open proxy by User:TParis. Now I think I've accidentally made 3 or 4 edits that I think might be from an open proxy. I am not sure. I will sign this edit then manually disable my VPN software until I am more knowledgeable. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you will be fine :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have almost 2,000 edits, with no problems. I'd think that a simple vandal reversion wouldn't need to list as pending. What's going on here? LHM 06:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Since you are not a reviewer, you do not have the technical capacity to accept pending changes. Now, you have been here long enough that the pending changes extension will not normally mark your changes as pending, but it did so here only because there were already pending changes awaiting review. You'd think it would work the way you seem to expect (that if someone reverts all pending changes, they count as reviewed), but apparently it doesn't. I'm surprised, honestly. Perhaps it is a technical limitation. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way I could be made a "reviewer", so that I don't run into this type of thing again? Or do I need to apply for that tool, like with admin status? LHM 06:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of just giving you the reviewer user right, but I am ever so slightly concerned about this revert, which really needed an edit summary. It's probably best if you read Wikipedia:Reviewing and then make a request at WP:PERM/RV so that people can review your contribs properly. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used the "Rollback" button, because it was an obvious case of someone simply removing basic, uncontroversial content from an article. I never saw an area where I could put an edit summary. It just rolled it back and took me back to the article. Not sure why that's viewed as a problematic revert, especially given that I'm not just some guy asking for the tool. I had a specific reason for wanting it, as well as a clearly demonstrated need for it. I'm not certain I want to get involved in the political side of things, which WP:PERM/RV seems to be. If the tool's that big of a deal, that an editor with my contribution level needs to "apply" for it, then I think I'll just putter along without it. LHM 08:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recognise the version you reverted to says "Several actors appeared in multiple films directed by Hughes. The late John Candy appeared more than any other actor, with eight film credits. Other frequently cast actors included:....John Candy (three films)". My OR suggests the IP was right, the part to be removed was John Candy appearing in the list with 3 films not the sentence saying he was the most with 8 films. But even without OR I presume you agree, if you are unsure the best thing to do is to tag the sentence and not mention John Candy twice in contradictory fashion.

While it's the sort of thing easy to miss since the IP unfortunately provided no edit summary (considering the whole thing is unsourced and the statement clearly made no sense, I don't think anything more than an edit summary can really be expected), it is a reminder it's generally best to read slightly more than the change you're reverting, particularly in cases when it's not obviously pure vandalism (e.g. some random person being gay).

Anyway more to the point, I'm not sure what "politicial side" it is you don't want to get in to, but for the various tools that are made available whether automatically or that you need to request, it is your responsibility to learn how to use them, how they work and when you can use them. I have no idea whether you were granted rollback by someone automatically because you'd been here long enough or you specifically asked for it, but your comments appear to suggest you at least didn't really know how it works. In such a case, it would be wise to learn a bit more WP:Rollback before asking for further rights like the reviewer right. And you should resonably expect people will not grant it even if it seems clear it would be helpful to you, regardless of whether or not you requested it, if it's clear you knowledge of existing tools is limited.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Hughes article, the IP edit was clearly not rollback worthy, though as it appeared in both my watchlist and using the diff function, it seemed cut-and-dried. Both views made it seem a clear case of blanking content. As for not leaving an edit summary, that was unintentional, since the screen that allows an edit summary never popped up for me, for whatever reason. I'm still not certain how that demonstrates that I don't need or understand the rollback function. I used it in a way that, had my perception of that edit (simple blanking) been correct, my use of it would've been acceptable, would it not? As for the "political" side of things, I just don't have any real interest in even getting into it, other than to say that I was referring to how people gain adminship, extra tools, etc. It's a political process, whether we like calling it that or not. LHM 20:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Someguy1221: I believe it's an anti-abuse measure... Some PC-protected pages are particularly prone to edit wars, so if non-reviewer reverts of pending edits aren't subject to review, it disadvantages non-autoconfirmed editors. Plus there's no real harm in having reviewers give reverts a once-over, since at that point the pending revision and the "stable" revision are identical. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It seemingly violates the definition of PC level 1 protection, in which autoconfirmed users should get automatically accepted. However, the vandals aren't autoconfirmed, and technically their edit is part of yours, so for yours to be accepted, theirs have to be as well, and that could only be done by a reviewer. It's not unique to here, it also occurs on MediaWiki.org, another wiki that users various PC settings.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, now that makes sense. So, if I manually removed the BS they tried to insert, would that make my edit automatically accepted? Or am I still misunderstanding the "guts" of the whole "pending revisions" thing? LHM 04:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  It would not unless the previous edit had already been accepted. Basically if there is a pending revision until that revision is either accepted or rejected all future edits are going to be pending as well. But IIRC any pending revisions are not shown to anyone not logged in unless they manually choose to see the pending version of the article. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  So, if I'm understanding this correctly, an article is effectively "locked" if there are "pending revisions", even to those of us who are experienced editors in good standing?!? That doesn't seem optimal at all. LHM 18:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't know if this the right place to ask, but Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files has developed quite a backlog (in excess of a month past the normal one week review). Could an Admin process some of the older discussions? —RP88 ^(talk) 08:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, help would definitely be appreciated. I've been trying to clear some of it but it keeps growing :/ Legoktm (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Due to getting some bad advice from someone at the Teahouse, a new editor did a cut and paste move on an article in AfC, recreating it in mainspace. Could an admin possibly clean this up? The improperly moved article is at Victor Channing Sanborn. The original, which will need to get moved to the name the cut and paste is on, is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Victor Channing Sanborn. Thanks in advance. I didn't give you any editor's names here, because I am not looking to cause anyone any problems. I would just like the cut and paste move fixed please. John from Idegon (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yunshui 雲‍水 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yunshui. John from Idegon (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we allow "template editors" to edit fully-protected templates? Obviously, I can't request allowing other non-administrative editors to edit them, now that we have "template editor" position. --George Ho (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what you're asking. Are you requesting advice, or are you asking us to reduce protection on some templates, or something else? Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fully-protected" templates do not allow template editors to edit. I want to do case-by-case at WP:RFPP, but there are too many. But I can't request lowering protection to all templates. How about templates transcluded by less than 10,000 pages? In other words, reducing protection on some. --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 2000 articles in Category:Pending AfC submissions; this is also concerning because new users sometimes approve bad articles by accident. If the active admins can help pitch in we can help better articles get published. Shii (tock) 23:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why "Articles for Creation" exists.

In 2005 in response to the Seigenthaler incident, unregistered users were stopped from creating new pages. So why do we bend over backwards to help them do so via AFC?

Why shouldn't they make a user account, and just create the article in the regular way, so that it receives equal treatment to any other new article?

It's worth mentioning that about 90% of AFC requests seem to have COI, which according to policy is "strongly discouraged".

With AFC, it seems we're putting a massive effort into helping people who don't bother getting involved in Wikipedia other than getting one article written for them - that same effort could be better used in improving other pages.

Just a thought.

Also, that backlog is just going to keep trending up forever, because there's simply not enough people that want to help out there - eventually, AFC will be just as pointless and useless as WP:Requested Articles. 88.104.4.74 (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I made another try at it, and found that at about 10% could be accepted unchanged, 10% needed speedy, and for most of the other 80% (which ranged from almost ready to very unlikely) what was needed was specific and focussed advice that could only be provided by ignoring the system's messages, and replacing or removing the templates it leaves, and in many cases explaining why the previous templated advice given was not the actual problem. Giving people assistance is necessarily a slow process. Trying to do so while fighting the constraints of a fundamentally faulty system which has refused to make even such basic changes as allowing multiple templated reasons or viewing & modifying templates before posting them, makes it much harder. I think I did manage to help a few people, but I also have the frustration of knowing that a some very worthy topics will only become articles if I rewrite them myself--this however would be true regardless of the system for working with them. I will continue to work on these submitted articles when I feelI have enough patience, but I'm still trying to find an efficient way to bypass the assorted paraphernalia. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut'n'pasted from User talk:MarshalN20#MarshalN20 Block Appeal by Wee Curry Monster talk 09:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently topic banned from topics related to Latin American history. Sandstein blocked me under the assumption that I broke my topic ban restrictions, specifically the "broadly construed" clause of the topic ban. I disagree and request my topic ban appeal be taken to a community discussion board due to the following reasons:

1. I am topic banned from history of Latin America articles. I am not banned from Latin American culture articles.
2. My edit summary was not appropriate, and I should not have edit warred in the article in question (however, I did not break the WP:3RR). But this does not justify a 2-month AE block.
3. The arbitration enforcement block is due to my participation in the article "Chile–Peru football rivalry" (see [41]), a sports article
4. The Chile-Peru football rivalry is a current event.
5. The history section of the Chile-Peru football rivalry section is clearly delimited. I have not edited it since the topic ban. WP:Banning policy allows me to edit articles unrelated to the topic ban but not on parts of pages that are:

1. The non-history sections of the article are related to sports (statistics, facts, etc.).
2. The first football match between Peru and Chile took place in 1935 (see [42]). This is well after the time of the War of the Pacific in the 19th century.
3. As part of the unblock request, I would like to apply and obtain a WP:MENTOR. As a friend recommends, I need to learn how to edit smarter and stop becoming a target of others.

Therefore, given the points above, I kindly request the community to remove my account block. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the request of User:EatsShootsAndLeaves, I draw attention to the discussion we had yesterday User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves#Your revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would draw everyone's eyes to about halfway down the discussion that WCM links to above. The short form is this:

• MarshalN20 has a topic ban concerning Latin American history, broadly construed.
• An editor can break that topic in two ways: 1) make a Latin-American history-related edit anywhere on the project, or 2) edit an article that is clearly and obviously related in any way to Latin-American history.
• At the time he edited the article, the lede of this article stated "Peru and Chile have a rivalry that dates back from the War of the Pacific. Previously, the two nations had been on friendly terms sharing mutual alliances during the South American wars of independence and Chincha Islands War. Territorial, maritime, and cultural disputes have fueled tensions since the ending of the War of the Pacific. These historical feuds and lingering bitterness have led to a large football rivalry between both nations" - thus showing that if it wasn't for non-sport-related history, then the rivalry (and thus the article) would not exist. Thus, this article is about Latin American history, broadly construed.
• This is his second AE enforcement block - the first 30-day block was removed early due to his promise that he understood, would not push the envelope, and would behave accordingly. As such, by escalation alone, this is a valid 60-day block
• As such, regardless of his individual behaviours (i.e. edit-warring, NPA, whatever), he should not have touched that article with a 10 foot pole

ES&L 11:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment I know that I said I didn't want to discuss "further behaviours", however, I just dropped by his talkpage. This edit that he made there is atrocious, inflammatory, inappropriate, and shows a continued battleground behaviour. Considering what everyone knows I do for a living, and everyone knows of my ethnicity, "User:EatsShootsAndLeaves went to Peru and Chile during his professional life? Good for him! That doesn't make his position any more valid than if he was to claim "he had black friends" and is, based solely on that, "not racist"." is a more-than offensive statement. If his response to my very polite discussion with WCM is to directly attack my profession AND my ethnicity, then 2 months is too short ES&L 11:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EatsShootsAndLeaves's comments at 11:27 above and also refer to the reasons I gave when making the enforcement block. I recommend to decline this appeal.  Sandstein  11:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose History is indeed a broad term, but Latin American history is more specific and this edit represents the second violation by the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock with an admonishment for edit warring. I can see the rationale behind Sandstein's decision, but having looked at the revert in question, the dispute is clearly over what is a current event. Even though there is history in the article lead, the topic is more in the sports culture field, so I can understand MarshalN20 believing that the article was beyond the scope of the topic ban. Even if the article is covered by the topic ban, I would have issued a warning to cease editing that article before going to a two-month block. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• unblock with admonishment as per Sjakkalle. In spite of the lead section, this is clearly a sports and culture article, not a history article in any reasonable sense. The edit dealt with a current, not a historical event, The edit summery was uncivil, regardless of the merits of the actual edit, but that is a matter unrelated to the topic ban. DES ^(talk) 15:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock The edit in question, and the article itself are obviously a current event, not history. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline unblock - Clearly and obviously within the terms of the topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock: It is a sports-related article, not related to historical topics. In fact, the inclusion of national wars is off-topic in the lede of that article and should be removed. Don't confuse the article with Chile–Peru relations, which is the one about the bilateral relations of Peru and Chile in history. Only a passing-by view of the article of the football rivalry may make someone think it's a historical topic. The rivalry is influenced by history, as most cultural topics, but it does not belong by itself in the realm of history. That is, you'll never find references to this rivalry in actual history books (except in specialized "history of football" books). Compare with England–Scotland football rivalry, I don't think you would include such article in the "History of Europe" topic, specially if the disputed portion was about the "August 2013 friendly" section. Cambalachero (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To suggest that sports-related articles cannot be historical topics as well is a bit nonsensical. That said, this one is a current event. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't know if my comments will have any merit on this discussion but in my opinion this rivalry is an extension of the ongoing historical dispute between chile and peru. I've noticed that some are arguing that this rivalry is purely on football terms, my answer to that is look at the Argentina-Brazil football rivalry. Tim Vickery a popular BBC commentator and south American football correspondent sums up this rivalry on the first paragraph (see[43]). That rivalry is purely about football there's no "real military history" between the two. In case of chile and peru there's no evidence the rivalry is purely on football. You've got to judge rivalry on its merits. Eitherway that's my two cents in. --Chelios123 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock Unless I'm missing something, this, and other iterations thereof, are the only edits in question. To quote WP:TBAN, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as...weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not. Blocking Marshal for this edit is like blocking the weather-banned person for editing the New York article's section on the Erie Canal. Neither one is a violation of the ban, and neither one is grounds for a ban-related block. Nyttend (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock. Marginally bad block to begin with and MarshalN20 promises to give the topic he is banned from an even wider berth. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock - I don't normally comment here on AN, but this was such a poor block I thought it would be best if I did comment. To call his editing of a current event historical seems like really poor judgement. Thankfully we have places like AN to fix mistakes.--Rockfang (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Uninvolved dmin note I see a 64% favorability toward removing the block with a strong warning for edit waring, but I see stronger arguments made by those supportive of the block who make a strong case that this is about Latin-American history. So, I'm going to request that other uninvolved admins give this discussion another day or so.--v/r - TP 23:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: When someone says the "history" topic, the usual things that come to mind are biographies, wars, turning-point events, former heads of state, national heroes, "history of..." sections, historical periods, etc. Even if some users may argue that a sports rivalry should be considered historical, it's clear that it's not among the obvious things that everybody would consider as such, and so MarshalN20 has not edited a history article on purpose. If it's unclear if the sports rivalry is historical or not, the best way to proceed would be to unblock MarshalN20 for the moment, and request a clarification from the Arbitration Comitee on this; with MarshalN20 avoiding the article as if it was included in the ban in the meantime until we get the clarification. Cambalachero (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As an IP I cannot vote...but I can comment and I want to state that this is exactly the sort of senseless abuse that I have come to expect from Sandstein, Arbitration Enforcement and the idea that "Broadly construed" topic bans are any benefit. They are not, they are setting the editor up for failure and are impossible. By their logic if I had a topic ban of Latin American topics I couldn't edit Christopher Columbus because he sent a couple nights there; certainly California, Texas and New Mexico are off limits because they are "broadly construed" Latin American related. This block was based on too broad of an interpretation of the badly worded and poorly thought out broadly construed language. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As an IP I cannot vote..." then why not login to your User:KumiokoCleanStart account? Fram (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why, Sandstein and AE have been allowed unlimited power by Arbcom to do whatever they want with no questions or review. Even if the community votes to undo the block here there is no requirement for Sandstein to do so. Whats more, the broadly construed language will just get them in AE jail again by someone who doesn't like their edits or point of view and they will just keep justifying it with this is the X time, each time looking worse for the editor regardless of the credibility of the accusation. So in the end there is no reason to vote either way because in the end, the editor is eventually going to be blocked anyway. The only way not too is for the user to not edit at all. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock Chile-Peru football rivalry mentions the War of the Pacific once in the lede, the rest of the article looks at win/loss statistics, the two national teams and comments on the nature of the games between the two nations. The lede as currently written does not conform to WP:LEDE in that it doesn't summarise the article and were it not for that single brief reference there would have been no connection to the topic ban. It is clearly a sports article not a history article and with respect to User:TParis I am concerned you would think a brief mention of a historic event in a poorly written lede makes for a strong argument for a AE block. WP:Banning policy clearly allows the editing of sports articles that reference history, provided the topic element of the topic ban is respected. We have here a poorly worded topic ban, one that arbcom itself acknowledged at the time [44] was over broad (see comments by NewYorkBrad). Hence, I am concerned at an overly inclusive interpretation of a badly worded sanction is being applied, which is in turn leading to an editor being blocked for two months. The suggestion to unblock and admonish, together with a reference to arbcom is a proportionate resonse in this case. However, a 2 month AE block is disproportionate and is punitive in nature rather than preventative. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether or not the lede is conforming or not is a red herring: after all, Marshal says he wrote the current lede, and therefore he knew exactly what it said! We have to go by how the article - and thus the lede - read when the supposed action took place. Based on the article at the time, the action was against the topic ban. With regards to 2 months block: that's due to recidivism - nobody's fault but his own. Indeed, he wouldn't have any topic ban if it wasn't for his own behaviour. Note: I have NOT !voted on whether to unblock or keep blocked - I'm merely clarifying some rather mistaken statements ES&L 18:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic of an article is not defined by the users listed in the article history, and neither which content is on-topic or off-topic in them. If a sports article that mentions wars in the lede was MarshalN20's mistake years ago, or someone else's mistake, is irrelevant for this discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't get your point. The job of the lede is to introduce the topic. If the lede says that the football rivalry is the direct result of incidents in Latin-American history, then it's completely relevant. ES&L 18:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ESL, you and I have already discussed this and agree to disagree as to whether this is a red herring. It is also clear that other editors have looked at the same case and a number agree with my position on this. I'm also sure you would agree it would also be pertinent to note that he has apologised for the remarks you refer to above as evidence of battleground behaviour and clarified they were a poor choice of words rather than a deliberate accusation of racism. Taking the issue of alleged recidivism in hand. His first month long block occurred two weeks after the incident in question, which is acknowledged by all as a technical violation of his topic ban. However, he believed a comment was in order because of the vandalism exemption in WP:Banning policy but it was pointed out to him this only applied in clear cases of vandalism (eg penis comments) he withdrew his comments, struck them out and took no further part in the discussion. Two weeks later after acknowledging his mistake and withdrawing, he is then hit with the block hammer with only a cursory examination of the AE case. The block cited as a basis of charge of recidivism was of itself inappropriate and as an argument for further sanctions is compounding injustice upon injustice. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock MarshalN20 should have known better than to get anywhere near anything that might possibly be construed as being under the remit of his topic ban, however I am not of the belief that his edits are in violation of his topic ban. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• unblock per Nyttend and Sven. Doesn't appear to be an edit in violation of his topic ban, but he should try to steer even "wider than reasonable" around his topic ban. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block. I realize I'm going against popular opinion here, but I've a long-standing belief that we need to show editors who are fucking around that we mean business. Why do people get topic banned to begin with? Because they can't check their emotions at the door and edit within some topic matter like a normal person. At this point, if MarshalN20 finds himself editing any article related to anything that happened in the past in Latin America and starts getting all hot and bothered, he should walk away. Instead, he decided to get into an edit war. Is the article peripherally related to Latin American history? Sure, it's a gray area. But why push it? You'd better believe that if I got topic banned from articles about the history of New York and I found myself edit warring in an article about a historical New York sports rivalry, I'd expect to get blocked. It amazes me that people carry on like this and then act like they didn't know they were doing anything. --Laser brain (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at WT:RFPP#Mass protection lowering from "sysop" to "editprotected". Thanks. Anomie⚔ 15:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to the closed discussion above ([45]) and the discussion below it. I propose that the wording should be "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned by any editor, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process."

This is more in line with normal processes related to other sanctions, and although warnings of any kind can be misused, I can't see a compelling reason to require warnings to be made by Administrators. See for instance Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions where I see a number of non-Admins logging warnings. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For articles under community sanctions, I 100% support notifications being able to be placed by anyone and everyone. The purpose of the notification is to make sure the person is aware of the sanctions. Even the template used for such purposes makes clear that it's not necessarily a suggestion of guilt. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, wasn't the view you state here also stated above by at least one editor in the original thread above, and rejected with the consensus adopting the alternative proposed by Bbb? If so why reopen on an issue that was settled so recently? SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the posts below by Bbb and the clsoing Admin you may see why. And it made the sanction pretty toothless, which may make some of the people directly involved happy but was not what the community ever intended. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dougweller, could you explain why requiring an admin warning prior to action makes the sanction "pretty toothless". As I understand it, the most this would mean is that an admin would have to warn before acting. On the other hand, the suggested version would create two classes of editors: those who have been warned by anyone and can therefore be blocked immediately and those who get to be warned first. Is that the intent? If so, then it should be clear how this would lead to editors stacking the deck by "warning" other editors. MilesMoney (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of any Admins willing to keep tabs on this area. I have no idea what the difference is between "those who have been warned by anyone" and "those who get to be warned first" as they seem to be the same - not that it matters as the suggestions below wouldn't do that. Nor can I understand why a warning would stack the deck. Warnings give the warned editor 2 choices - ignore the warning and get blocked, respect the warning and don't get blocked. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone hasn't been informed of the sanctions, we presume that they're unaware, so we inform them but don't immediately apply those sanctions. Once they've been informed, though, we go straight to punishment, as they ought to have known better. Therefore, being informed is harmful to an editor. Furthermore, an editor who goes out of their way to inform editors they disagree with but don't inform editors they agree with would be doing the former a disservice. MilesMoney (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miles, if I were an admin then I'd seriously consider topic banning the lot of you right now for general disruptiveness and drama-mongering across a swathe of articles. Hasn't it sunk in yet that this almost-endless lawyering, bickering and pedantic searching for clarificatino of ever more specious points that work in favour of one "side" or against the other is, well, tiring everyone else out? Most admins will walk away when it gets like this, and then they'll snap and come down on you like a ton of bricks. Thery're human, after all. It wouldn't be so bad if the various contributors concerned showed an interest in other topic areas but there are only one or two who seem to do so and this thus becomes something of a travelling circus. You don't need a warning and nor does anyone else who was involved in the original sanctions discussion: you are de facto aware of them and any warning issued is mostly a matter of courtesy. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find anything in your comment that seems relevant to what I brought up, so I'm just going to let it sit there. MilesMoney (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise. The relevance is that I wouldn't like to see those currently involved in the AE drama trying to lawyer their way out of a sanction on the basis that they have not been warned of WP:AEGS, and I know that those involved are apt to lawyer. There is currently an open thread at WP:AE where just this issue has arisen wrt WP:ARBIPA. Your altruism is fine and dandy but do you accept that you and the other regulars in the drama are already sufficiently knowledgable of the sanctions? - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. WP:GS/BI doesn't appear to require any warning at all. WP:SCWGS uses a completely different template. WP:GS/MMA is completely different. Even Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions doesn't require {{Uw-probation}}, although it appears that most people use it. Also, it can be tailored by extra text. Nonetheless, I would have no problem if we standardized community-based sanctions with the mandatory use of Uw-probation and that it could be done by any editor. One extra detail: I would prefer to change the language of Uw-probation from " Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits" to " Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits" (bolded change) as often the warning is issued after there is a problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with what Bbb23 said above. This should be applied to WP:General sanctions and it should be marked as a guideline.--v/r - TP 22:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Sounds good to me also. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I apologize for asking the community to vote again, but based on the above, I propose:

1. The identical sanctions language proposed by Doug above (added bolded phrase per TP's suggestion below): "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned by any editor that sanctions have been authorized, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process."
2. Change Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions#Log of Notifications to read: "Any editor may alert any other editor that sanctions have been authorized. The alert links to this page and is issued by placing the standard template message – {{subst:Uw-probation}} – on the talk page of the editor being notified. Alerts must be logged here and include the diff of the notification."

(As an aside, I intend to add the word "necessarily" to Uw-probation as I mentioned in the above section. If someone feels that's too bold and requires discussion, they can revert me.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Change "despite being warned by any editor" to "despite being warned by any editor that sanctions have been authorized". The way yours is written implies that editors get one freebie violation before they can be sanctioned.--v/r - TP 15:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've incorporated your change above. It's a bit wordy, but I understand the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support then.--v/r - TP 16:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Presenting the mace in terms of what sanctions have been authorized is a way to make sure we don't get "But I didn't know" arguments. In practice, the first presentation is in context of a percieved violation of the authorization, but any editor in good standing should be able to irrevocably give notice of the authorization. I know I've had to remind disputants of sanctions in effect to greatly improved behavior. Hasteur (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, This happens every so often. We get a huge influx of emails and we fall behind. Some of the responses are 7-10 days overdue at this point (speaking specifically about the info-en queues - not permissions). Anyhow, if you are interested in volunteering, review the information on Meta and apply at m:OTRS/V. Note: You don't have to be an Administrator to be an OTRS Agent. If you have any questions, feel free to contact us or me directly. Thanks! Rjd0060 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As many or not many of you know, Cyberbot I has taken over AfDBot. I have just finished converting the script to PHP. The bot seems to be functioning normally now. I've also relocated the pages that provide reports on AfD's to User:Cyberbot I/AfD report, User:Cyberbot I/Current AfD's, and User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This IP recently made a personal attack against me, in violation of WP:NPA. The comment is visible [here. I've warned it. I'd like to see the IP blocked if it keeps this up. I'll notify the IP of this discussion in one moment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT II (talk · contribs) has been making weird edits on various templates (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Disambiguation_needed&diff=582080428&oldid=581202663, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASelf&diff=582081088&oldid=581995440).

I'm unsure of how much damage has been done, and if all those edits are undesired, but someone should take a look at things. I started reverting some of the edits, but since I'm unsure which were done erroneously and which actually worked, I've created this thread instead so people can take a look at things.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Module:Unsubst and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT II 2. The only problem I'm aware of at the moment that is to Template:Self, and the bot is stopped now while I work on that and then check if any other edits had the same problem. Anomie⚔ 19:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nothing to see here. I jumped the gun based on some confusion. Sorry for the panic. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've gone through the bot's edits and reverted any others that had this problem. I've also updated the bot to prevent this from recurring. Anomie⚔ 19:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was re-created since its 2nd AFD. It was tagged for "speedy deletion" twice, and someone else removed it, insisting that addition of references change everything. I wanted to request undeletion in WP:REFUND, but I guess I must discuss this first with you. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who did not create the article I am able to remove the speedy deletion tag. You have said[46] on my talk page: "I don't know whether changes are substantial or not". So why are you proposing it for speedy deletion for being significantly similar to a deleted page when you don't know that it is?

The article in question was last deleted in May of this year, but the current article includes no fewer than 9 references that were written after the deletion. They are facts like who the contestants are going to be, which weren't decided until after the last deletion. I submit that it can't possibly be "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of the old article. ParacusForward (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blogspot and some primary sources do not count as a drastically different article. I've deleted it under CSD G4.--v/r - TP 01:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I don't understand this decision. When the original discussion[47] took place one of the editors agreeing with deletion thought the article should be recreated in 2013 or 2014. And at the last deletion discussion[48] one of the 2 voters said: "Too soon. Don't yet know where it will be, or who will be there." The page is gone now, but I recall that we now knew where it was going to be and at least 9 of the contestants.

I can't really judge the decision properly because I can't access article that existed the last time deletion was discussed. I guess while anyone can nominate an article for WP:CSD#G4 only administrators can truly judge the merits of such a request. I'm surprised it fulfilled the speedy deletion criteria, because the reason for deletion no longer applied (new facts had come forward) and it was a different article (new references). ParacusForward (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read this policy and then find sources that meet it--v/r - TP 02:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are linking to that page. The reliability of the sources has absolutely nothing to do with even an A7 speedy delete. This was a WP:CSD#G4 speedy delete which has a completely different criteria: the article must be a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted". There are two reasons why a speedy delete would not be appropriate: an article which is "not substantially identical to the deleted version" or "reason for the deletion no longer applies." It seems logical to me that the page that was speedily deleted fit both of those criteria. I don't know that I object to the article being deleted, but I don't think a speedy delete is appropriate. I would appriciate it if someone else who can see the original article can confirm that it meets the strict WP:CSD#G4 criteria. ParacusForward (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ParacusForward's other contributions

User:ParacusForward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I notice that ParacusForward declined speedy deletion on Christmas with Irving James & Friends, but this article is a mess and may not meet WP:NMUSIC (or indicate importance). Check his other contributions. --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Christmas with Irving James & Friends is a mess and may not meet WP:NMUSIC. New pages often are, but I don't believe it meets the requirements for speedy deletion. It plainly says at WP:CSD#A9 that this is a lower standard than WP:NMUSIC. It says that "An article about a musical recording that has no corresponding article about its recording artist." I showed that it did not meet this requirement here[49]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParacusForward (talk • contribs) 04:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? Having a minor contributing artist with a Wikipedia page still doesn't establish notability. Irving Jame himself does not have a page and can be deleted as such. I don't know why you turned down my CSD nomination. KonveyorBelt 04:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I turned down the nomination because a speedy delete has specific criteria, and, as I explained above, this article did not meet it. We seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of this page: WP:CSD. It says "It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines." Irving James is the producer of the album, the WP:CSD#A9 page does not say the producer must have a Wikipedia page. ParacusForward (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be PRODded anytime. Feels that the whole system is either manipulated or abused, and I won't say that it wasn't you. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ParacusForward with only 25 edits to mainspace clearly lacks sufficient experience to patrol pages. Either they agree unconditionally to refrain from patrolling and tagging pages until they have a knowledge compatible with the task, or be Tbanned from patrolling. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See #Miss Universe 2014. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize my actions constituted patrolling. I think all of my actions followed a plain-text interpretation of the WP:CSD page, but I can see how WP:SNOW applies in this area and it seems that there is a culture of rubber stamping these that I wasn't able to pick up from my reading. If no one here cares to defend me, I clearly need more experience. ParacusForward (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, rubber stamping is exactly what we endeavour to avoid. You certainly need more experience before tagging pages, but this is not a criticism - everyone has to start somewhere. If my comment on your talk page or here appeared to be a little impatient, it's because we have enormous problems at NPP, such as this morning with only one patroller on duty, and up to 1,000 pages a day being created. If you can learn fast, you are welcome to help out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being the first to be even a little supportive of a new editor trying to help the project. I feel I have been rather shabbily treated in all this. The first indication that anyone objected to any of my edits was this[50] post here on AN. George didn't talk to me before relisting the article for speedy delete nor did he reference the concerns with a speedy delete I had originally brought up when adding his to the article. It seemed reasonable to me that he hadn't even seen it.

Rather than discussing the topic with me there was an immediate post on the administrator board, a witch-hunt: "Check his other contributions"[51], and accusations of bad faith[52]. And then you propose I be banned from the area when no one has pointed to policy I violated and I haven't done any changes since objections were raised. I was hoping someone here would support me even a little, but this place isn't very friendly to newbies. I can understand why the area is understaffed. ParacusForward (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents here is that neither of his declines were hugely unreasonable. In one case there were new sources and in the other, it did does have a credible assertion of notability (Emmy award-winners being involved will do that, though I don't know that I believe the statement is true). I personally would have declined the one on the album and either sent it to AfD or prodded it (there is nearly no chance it meets WP:N). I'd probably have let the Miss Universe speedy stand. In other words, I think you all need to back off a bit. In any case, a trout to George for apparently bringing this to AN before discussing it with the user. That seems outrageous given that there was no pressing issue that needed to be quickly resolved. WP:BITE and all that... Hobit (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Hobit. Had I encountered the G4 tag on Miss Universe 2014 I would have removed it myself, for the obvious reason that the article does have some substantial differences to the version that went to AfD. Christmas with Irving James & Friends is a slightly closer call, but there's certainly no reason to censure someone for removing that tag. If anything, Paracus appears to be one of the good guys who applies the CSD as they are meant to be applied - highly specifically, and with close attention to the possible exceptions. There's certainly nothing in his editing I can see that merits dragging him here, and I'd recommend this thread be closed and archived as soon as possible. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support his declines. For the record album. It unambiguously does not meet the speedy criterion, and anyone who did tag it was wrong, and any admin who deleted it on that ground needs a review of WP:CSD. In the other case there were news sources; as non-admins can not see the deleted article, it is reasonable to remove the tag is they think it might be an improved version. Lack of notability is not a speedy criterion. , I'm surprised at some of the comments. The new ed may need experience in other respects, but these two actions were correct. I think we need to apologize him for the actions of more experienced people who understand less than he does. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having looked over a number of ParacusForward's other speedy declines again a bit more thoroughly, I'd say he's doing a bang-up job removing inappropriate CSD tags. CAT:CSD is a page I patrol almost daily, and I've lost count of the number of times I've had to remove hastily-added tags where the CSD criteria were not only unmet, but completely irrelevant to the page. If anything, we need more non-admins who are willing to look through that category, find sources and delist articles that don't deserve the swift guillotine of speedy deletion: as far as I can tell, ParacusForward is just such a contributor. He's to be commended, not condemned. Yunshui 雲‍水 16:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is? How about his removal[53] of the CSD tag on 2016 Formula One season? That article went through AFD but has constantly been recreated(A problem all future Formula One seasons have had. Would you believe there was a 2019 Formula One article in 2010? The 2013 or 2014 FO article was speedy deleted five or six times.) since. Twice in the last month before a third time yesterday. It was speedy deleted two times and should be again with a healthy dose of WP:SALT till at least next summer or it will be recreated again before Christmas. Heck I'd give even money its up again less than 10 days after an AFD closes as delete. Which is where it is headed at present....William 17:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William, have you ever made a mistke at CSD? I certainly have., and I feel much worse about the ones I;ve deleted thant shouldn't have been, than the ones that I could have removed by speedy, but got deleted later. The rule there is that except for vandalism and libel and BLP violations and undoubted copyvio, it's always safer to delete the tag. If something still needs to be removed quickly, you can ask for a speedy delete at afd; if the content is a real problem, you can blank it in the process. G4 is a perennial problem criterion because a non admin cannot see the deleted content, & there are always disputes about how far something must be improved to pass it 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<ec with DGG>OK, first of all the article is at a different name than it was deleted at via an AfD and the person who placed the speedy tag didn't link to the other discussion. That would make it appear to be an invalid speedy. Secondly, speedy deleting something like this based on 3-year-old AfD isn't the right call. So even if he did find the history, it's a reasonable decline. Sure, it will likely get deleted at AfD but A) it was reasonable to decline and and B) that something gets deleted at AfD doesn't mean that removing the speedy was the wrong thing to do. Hobit (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is playing games with these constant recreations and I'll give you two reasons for my opinion- The present article reminds me too much of one of previous creations. Not the last one, but one from October or earlier. The editor who created this version is almost brand new to Wikipedia. That suggests somebody's sockpuppet. Who it belongs too, I have no idea. Secondly- The newly named article is ever so slightly spelled different(Season rather than season) than its previous versions. I don't think that's an accident but an attempt to escape detection. At least one other editor, other than myself, have confessed to having 2016 Formula One season and some more distant years on their watch list. If it is deleted again at AFD, the article will be back again within the month if not much earlier as sure as snow will fall in Alaska between now and Christmas....William 18:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know what to do about this article. See this thread on my talk about it. I'm not sure what the best remedy is here, but I know that I don't seem to have much traction with the user in question. I may have been in error. Feel free to point out if so. I went to the talk page for WikiProject Syria to post a query there about it, but there doesn't seem to be much traffic on that page. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The template at the top of the page states that it's a guideline, but then the template right under it states that it's an essay. Which is it? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Irony. At any rate, SilkTork made the change on November 19, 2012 per this discussion and this ambiguity has existed since then. I've removed the tag that said it was an essay, since the discussion he closed was a proposal to make both one, consolidated guideline. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Few days ago Galicia (Eastern Europe) was moved without discussion to Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe), then to current Galicia (central Europe). Bot fixed the first redirect, so it cannot be undone by non-admin. I request that the article is restored to the original name, and a proper WP:RM is started: this move is controversial and shouldn't be done in the non-discussion way it has. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RM you should list this there as a technical request ("If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. If you are unable to revert, request it below." (underline added)) Since the redirect has been edited, an admin at RM will have to undo it. Just an FYI for the future, but since it is already here, meh. Rgrds. --64.85.215.96 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article back to Galicia (Eastern Europe) and applied temporary move protection. I'll be leaving WP:ARBEE notices for the two editors who made the recent undiscussed moves. Moves of articles in this part of the world often have national motivations that are sometimes quite openly and frankly expressed on the talk pages. People seem to feel it is more of an honor for their region to be central than eastern, or something. Though these editors may be working in good faith, the net effect of impulsive article moves (when there is a patchwork of nationalities) can be disruptive. The definition of central Europe has been in dispute before. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martina Moreau has embarked on a unilateral program of moving certain pages that she think fit better under central than eastern Europe. See Special:Log/Martina Moreau for more than a dozen examples dating from 16 November. In my opinion all of these moves should be rolled back. In most cases this can be done without admin assistance and I see that some have already been done. I've left Marina a warning of a block in case of further moves of this type without discussion. She's been on Wikipedia since January but I don't think she gets the concept of WP:CONSENSUS. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was speedy deleted numerous times before salting in 2007. However, several commercially published books have since written about the term, meaning it's now (IMHO) notable. A new version of the article is parked in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/YouTube Poop, but it can't be moved to mainspace because of the protected title. Could an admin please unsalt this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any chance of doing the talk page too? ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is just over 1 day left for candidates in the December 2013 Arbcom election to Nominate themselves. There are currently only 9 candidates running for 9 open seats, and while there are often last minute nominations, I wanted to remind everyone that time is running out to nominate yourself. Nominations close at 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday the 19th. Monty₈₄₅ 18:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]