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.

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need 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 45 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{not done}} Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 76 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]

 Done Loki (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 76 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 73 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:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section

(Initiated 67 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals

(Initiated 52 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPath^talk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Chetsford (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

• (Initiated 52 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
• (Initiated 49 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
• (Initiated 49 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL

(Initiated 47 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

(Initiated 44 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Yasuke#RfC:_Should_the_view_that_Yasuke_was_a_samurai_be_added_to_the_article

(Initiated 32 days ago on 21 May 2024) It's a bit buried in a header designed to group similar discussions together (because there have been so many of them). I would like to request an experienced or admin closer, as this page has had a lot of new or WP:SPA accounts on it recently, so some more advanced weighting of the consensus here may be necessary. Loki (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Benito_Mussolini#Infobox_Picture

(Initiated 27 days ago on 27 May 2024) This discussion could use a close. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)  Closed Tom B (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Frederick_the_Great#Rfc_for_Frederick_the_Great's_infobox_picture

(Initiated 25 days ago on 29 May 2024) Last comment was 9 days ago and this is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close

(Initiated 23 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024

(Initiated 32 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Berig, does it really need an admin? Tom B (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is true. However, as an involved admin and the discussion having been quite lengthy and contentious, I thought it could be appropriate.--Berig (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at it, I can see why an admin was requested, Tom B (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 26 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024

(Initiated 21 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro

(Initiated 19 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]

(I notified the user for you, do that first next time.) The "considerable discussion" Andre alludes to is as far as I can see a unilateral decision, and a poor, uninformed one at best. I tried to read through all of it, and I don't know exactly what he's trying to do (User:Tradedia, could you explain what's going on? I sure as hell can't). I don't think you were wrong, Killiondude. Ansh666 02:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big question to me is what YOU are trying to do, Killiondude ?

I do not see any problem with trying to help rearrange a site that fails to function properly due to the inability of Mediawiki to properly display the page.

Everything I (and others) are doing is in cooperation with Tradedia, the creator of the original page.

So where is the problem ? I get the impression of facing a bunch of control freaks. How does that improve Wikipedia ?

Note, for one, that the function of speedy delete does in no way precludes at least contacting the creator of a page if it is unclear what they seem to be trying to do. Most civilized people, including myself, would consider that common courtesy. André437 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

André437, the topic and goal of the page is not clear to me (or at least wasn't when I last checked it--it's too big to open half of the time and gives me a headache when I am able to view it). I will make a list of things wrong in this situation.

1. We don't typically copy and paste articles under new names. Sure, it's done, but not standard.
2. Following that, I'm still not sure what the goal of this page is. Is it the history of the war? The history of the cities and towns involved in the war? Why should this exist separate from the original page?
3. The name is horrible. At the very least the dashes are non-standard. If the civil war is a proper noun it should be capitalized.
4. The page is often too big to load. This is a problem with the original page, too (obviously).

Ansh, I didn't intend to start a discussion about an editor. I intended to start a discussion about an article. There's a difference, therefore I didn't ping Andre. :) Killiondude (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, it's still standard to notify them if you mention that they are the source of an issue you are having - note that the notification template says "regarding an issue with which you may have been involved", not "about you". Anyways, it would be useful and courteous to have him here to explain and discuss things, even if that's been unsuccessful so far. Ansh666 00:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ansh :

1. I do understand that it is not standard to copy and paste a whole page. It was done with some immediate modifications (such as not transcluding the huge map) to try to eliminate display problems more quickly. Further changes to be done progressively. Doing it this way also makes it easier to avoid mistakes.
2. Currently the total size is so big that the original page doesn't display properly, particularly the references. We are spliting the page to solve this problem. As well, splitting allows viewing and editing to be faster (with less load on the servers, evidently). Older information in the ongoing war is not of as much interest by those following the war. So the idea was to put much of this in another page, with links from the current page to the corresponding part. (ie. Older info about Aleppo seen by a link from Aleppo; older info about Daraa seen from a link from Daraa, etc.) Some of which is already done.
3. The name chosen is logical but not necessarily the most elegant. For the capitalisation, I used what is usually done in french, so no problem changing that. We are open to suggestions. I added the "- history" part since this was to contain older info. Once the war is over, it could be reorganized again. As it stands now, there are already many subpages with a lot less coherance than this new approach.
4. Indeed, the size of the page is the reason for the split. And why I copied the whole page at once instead of many little transfers, to speed up the process. Although I have paused during this "discussion", since reversing changes will be very time-consuming and error-prone, and certainly not helpful to reduce the page size.
5. Note also that having a programming background and being familiar with Mediawiki, I have made an number of suggestions to improve the page that have been mostly implemented by other editors, and only with the concordance of Tradedia, the original author and main editor of the page. I think he has an excellent project and I want to help. I also promised him that if there were any controversy over changes that I would deal with it, since these are largely my suggestions.
6. BTW, if you have any influence on functions available, it would be very nice to be able to have user-defined variables available in a page. Or if you know where to go to discuss this with those who could make such changes ... André437 (talk) 10:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Killiondude: That's a reply to you, not me. Ansh666 18:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had the impression that I was responding to comments by Ansh. Most of the points have already been made to Killiondude, but he doesn't seem to understand. Having read the guidelines, it is unclear why he sees a problem, given the circumstances. He reiterates some of the reasons given for splitting the page. So one would expect him to be supportive, not objecting. In the meantime this split is stalled, since reversals will be very time-consuming and error-prone. The original page is undergoing constant revisions. André437 (talk) 22:49, 23 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]

Maybe rollback should have been used when the damage was first discovered but, at this point, Editors have been working yesterday and today to revert and fix the 300+ edits on this one issue that were done on Saturday. I can't say that we got to all of them but I imagine we resolved a good 90%. I don't have rollback rights but I don't think you can rollback all of an Editors edits once others have edited these same pages. It was quite a lot of work to undo manually. It showed me that a well-intentioned but misguided Editor with an entire day to edit Wikipedia can do a lot more damage than a reckless vandal can do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz is absolutely correct regarding rollbacks. Many of the articles had been edited post-move and valid content would have been lost. It's a pity that such drastic changes can't be prevented without impinging on any user's right to edit on a more comprehensive level. I've always been uncomfortable about pushing the 'be bold' line without tempering it with 'but not reckless'. It's a line that gets crossed constantly and thrown back as justification for reworking existing articles, categories, etc. in a destructive (as opposed to constructive) manner all too often. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Iryna, that the problem is nipped in the bud when an Editor makes a bold change and then listens to feedback (pro and con) before moving forward. In this case (and others), an Editor sees themselves as taking on a "Project" to fix some mistake they see existing on WP and they devote hours to making corrections everywhere they find them (and I believe Marina got to the point where she thought she had gotten to all references to Galacia). It's amazing what one determined person can do on WP when they are focused.

Sorry if this is off-tangent, as it looks like this situation is resolved, But I'm sure it has come up in the past and will come up again in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not off-tangent, Liz. I was thumbing my nose at 'be bold' because it's often misunderstood intentionally, and that's mainly due to my somehow having ended up working predominantly on Slavic articles (which should carry a health hazard warning). Even without the 'be bold', they attract a substantial number of those kinds of people who wouldn't pay attention if you had a gun pointed at them. Apologies, I can't seem to be able to think of a polite euphemism for nationalist-extremist-loonies off the top of my head. Of course the 'be bold' policy shouldn't be changed. I simply believe that despots such as myself should be able to control who's allowed to be bold.

On a serious note, I think I've caught fairly much everything after a final 'seek and destroy' mission. There were only a couple of missed items and a {{distinguish}} broken due to her having mucked up the syntax. Ah, well. 'Stuff' happens. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to appeal. I think I have become a victim of a witch hunt. I have done nothing wrong technically, nor meritorically. Above all - in good faith to straighten things out, which actually members have either asked me to do, or thanked me for doing them. Instead of thanking messages, I was bombarded with unpleasant and abusive statements, from the user Iryna Harpy. I was portrayed as a person who I am certainly not, and there have been all sorts of claims, including the one above, that I wish to "seek and destroy." I disagree with this abusive behavior and I want some justice, because things have gone definitely too far. I agree that if I made edits that some people consider scandalous, because Galicia for these people is a region in eastern Europe, but I certainly will not allow verbal abuse and defamation. I consider taking this up (against Iryna Harpy, and in case I will be unable to obtain her details - Wikipedia) if the issue is not solved by the end of this week. I demand an honest apology on my talkpage from Iryna Harpy or Wikipedia.--Martina Moreau (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you have misread the above statement due to your being upset at the moment. Please re-read the entire thread carefully. Naturally, if you feel that I have abused, harassed, been unjust or demonised you on your talkpage or elsewhere, I would certainly encourage you to submit an official complaint against me. That is precisely what Wikipedia policies, guidelines and procedural protocols are in place for. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can call this a "witchhunt" which is when you look for people who have violated some written or unwritten standard of conduct. In this case, both Iryna and I came upon your edits, we didn't go out searching for them or you. While I still believe you were well-intentioned Martina, you made hundreds and hundreds of edits without seeking community consensus. Geographic designations in this part of Europe have a contentious history on Wikipedia (which you saw when you received a general sanction warning) so it is hard to view your actions as, you have stated elsewhere, "uncontroversial".

Considering that between Iryna and I, we spent at least 9 hours undoing, reverting and correcting all of your edits, I believe you owe both of us a "thank you" for correcting your mistakes. We saved you an entire day's work reverting your misguided edits and if Iryna spoke sharply, it is because it's frustrating to devote so much time to cleaning up someone else's mistakes.

All you had to do to avoid this, Martina, was suggest the change first at WP:EEUROPE, WP:EUROPE or WP:UKRAINE before making your edits. Who knows, you might have eventually won over consensus. But you didn't do this and one editor can't determine the boundaries of different regions of the world based on their own point of view. If you are interested in this topic, I encourage you to interact with other editors on the relevant WikiProject and discuss your edits beforehand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, judging on the wording of one particular user, I think it is completely like a "wicked witch". I did not "violate" them intentionally. You seem curious why this particular error. Well, I have been studying about this part of the world (called Slavonic Studies) and I knew I was doing the right thing. This is what I do best, and this is what people have suggested me to do (Toddy1), when I joined Wikipedia (see my talk page, section in January 2013). Somehow it turned out to be a disappointment for some people, and also me, since it took me a lot of time to get it straight. I ave been honest at every step of this "investigation" but you have to agree with me that this has gone beyond everything - with treating me almost like a criminal, using the words that are semantically not justified.

I would like to think that your reverts will be useful. I have reverted many vandalisms (when people write random text like "I love Jenny" in an article regarding a town in Spain). I'm afraid the evidence to place Galicia in central Europe is too strong on so many different grounds, that your effort will be rather unmarked because obviously my edits have not been vandalisms. They were undiscussed changes to a minor, and rather historical, European region, certainly not vandalisms. If you spent 9 hours reverting, note how much time I spent with them. What if it turns out that this is not the ideal term, again, which is very likely what's going to happen? Or what if we both were wrong and it will be decided that Galicia should have a completely different title, or be subdivided into Eastern Galicia and Western Galicia?

I appreciate your candid nature to undo my work, but I think it was rather out of anger (judging on the messages of yours and Iryna), than any particular merit.

I think I have lost my appetite for Wikipedia for a few weeks now... Still, I would appreciate apology from Iryna.--Martina Moreau (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martina, I have apologised to fellow Wikipedians before. Misunderstandings and inadvertent offences occur and I am always prepared to acknowledge them when I recognise that I was out of line. My apologies are always sincere and I will not have my hand forced in order to obtain an apology which is not merited. Such behaviour would be ingenuous on my behalf.

While I cannot speak on behalf of Liz, I see absolutely no grounds for your demanding an apology from her.

All I've been able to establish from your various justifications of your actions is that you consider yourself to be an authority in the area of Slavic Studies (as a student). I'm not even going to begin to list my credentials in this area, having over 30 years of research and teaching at university level under my belt, so please don't try to twist your badly informed understanding of how Wikipedia works into actions based on who is the greater authority. The issue at hand is not that I am right and you are wrong, or visa versa, but that you have not followed Wikipedia protocols as regards making unilateral decisions. The best of intentions do not necessarily translate into good outcomes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not question you are telling the truth, I still think that it is impossible to be unaware of the fact that some older scholars seem to have rather different approach to the issue. These days we do not equate Eastern Bloc with Eastern Europe, and this is what you have been pushing forward. Even when I was a student a decade ago, Galicia was in central Europe, or Central and Eastern Europe. These days geographical approach dominates. Take any map or atlas printed these days in Europe and you will see what I mean. I would like to be able to admire your work, if I knew any paper or book you have published, to review its quality, but judging on your approach and attitude towards me here, I don't really know what to say. I believe you are honest, but you are misguided. Tuition 30 years ago and earlier was very different to tuition today.--188.79.39.190 (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martina, I don't see how you can read our comments and be so hurt and offended. Neither I nor Iryna are "angry", we were frustrated at spending so much time reverting your edits. I apologize if our frustration came out as sarcasm but it was a lot of work. No one said your work was "vandalism", I've repeatedly said that I think the hundreds of edits were done in good faith.

But, it doesn't matter if you (or Iryna, for that matter) are an expert in Slavonic Studies, as I've said repeatedly, the havoc that your editing caused was because you didn't work to get consensus on making this decision and just decided on your own to reassign geographic boundaries. Wikipedia works by determining the consensus views of editors working in a subject, this is a collaborative editing process, especially in areas like Eastern Europe where there have been previous disputes. If you want to write about Central and Eastern Europe and say whatever you want, I recommend you keep a blog or write a book. On Wikipedia, before you make a change like saying Galicia is in Central Europe, not Eastern Europe, you need to talk about it first. I already recommended that you go to the talk pages of WP:EEUROPE, WP:EUROPE or WP:UKRAINE to discuss your proposed change. I am sure they would welcome your participation since you have studied in this area.

All of this advice is meant to help you work more productively at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the warnings which were posted on your Talk Page were posted after all of your editing was finished, as new editors and admins were discovering the problems. So, they didn't have the desired effect of getting you to stop reassigning categories because you were already done but the warnings kept piling up. That's unfortunate. But, as I said, this could have been avoided if you had just discussed these changes first. And that's all I have to say about this. I hope you can get over your hurt feelings and return to editing WP in a productive, collaborative way. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martina (and 188.79.39.190 as I'm not going to directly accuse you of sock puppetry), I apologise if you have somehow confused frustration at having to undo a mass of moves and edits made by you, based on a unilateral decision, with a personal attack. It was never my intention to hurt you but to address the issues of content. To be honest, I'm now far less concerned about the issue under discussion than your personal state of mind (that is, my concerns are for you, the person). Your behaviour would indicate that you are far too emotionally involved with the areas you are editing in Wikipedia. I truly don't mind whether it is called Eastern Europe, Central Europe or Timbuktu so long as it is done according to Wikipedia protocols and consensus. Could I suggest that you take a short break from editing or, at least, continue to use the discussion underway on the Galicia talk page as you have begun to do.

If you wish to make a formal complaint against me, please do so at the appropriate venue. The discussion here has gone on far too long and should be closed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not going to accuse you of letting your scientific rigor loose - Russia may not have the warmest relations with the rest of Europe, but it is very far away from the Cold War (it surprised me you consider CIS as an organisation that is supposedly continuing to be in the Cold War). Despite relations between European countries, all of them are very far from the Cold War, I can assure you, otherwise they wouldn't build ITER. For more information, please see the article European integration. I can understand that you have grown in different times, in central Europe, when it was a part of the Eastern Bloc, in the height of the Cold War, but please acknowledge that geography is not something that we can play with much, and by writing central Europe with miniscule, I referred to the geographical region, rather than political shortcut term for the Eastern Bloc (these change even within a generation).

This is more serious than not logging in once, after closing browser. I think we are humans and we are emotional beings, and if I got emotional at any point, it wasn't because of the articles, but because of the situation in which I was dragged a week ago. Nevertheless, it is not me who displayed the most vivid and aggressive language. If you truly do not mind how Galicia is tagged, then why knowing that it can be considered easily in central Europe, would you spend 9 hours just to revert my edits, just on one detail?

I accept your apology on my talk page if it will be made in any foreseeable future, just to let you know. I would like to report you but it means going through a lot of negative things and I just don't have time for it, I have to say.--Martina Moreau (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a disconcerting capacity for twisting what is being conveyed in messages. Now that I am satisfied that you are not in danger of self harm or a breakdown but are merely stubborn and incapable of recognising that your behaviour may be wrong, I will state three things: 1) I was not apologising for my actions but expressing concern over your being unhealthily overemotional and misinterpreting them, so do not expect a personal apology of any description on your talk page or elsewhere; 2) I do not appreciate your taking a snippet of a comment from a talk page and misrepresenting it because you have already overstepped the line and are attacking me rather any disputed content; 3) This is not a forum for teaching others what is correct and what is incorrect as pertains to article-specific content. Now this IS my final missive on this page in order that the discussion be closed. The matter of Central Europe is done and dusted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The initial section title "Implementation of own prods without creator notification" was a mis-description of the problem as pointed out by editors below. Fixed. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat surprised at the closure of discussion of User:Coffee's recent edits above. I would expect a User with this patterns of edits to receive a block, or at least a warning. Irrespective of the the unanimous content on the rest of the issues. As an admin on an academic forum I do not take the view that contributors with tools are exempt from normal contributor standards.

Be that as it may, among the questions (1)-(6) not answered, one related to a technical issue on which I would request clarification. Is it recommended that editors should act on their own prods in the case of sourced stubs (not talking about unsourced BLPs and other priority items - even though those get 7 days), and if it is the case that acting on own prods is recommended, does that void any requirement for a time gap between prod and implementation, or void any requirement to notify article creators so that sourced stubs can be improved? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your judgement is a little clouded because of his removal of rights a few days ago? I'm not saying for sure if it is but it's possible..Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's my view as an admin on an academic forum.

Does anyone know the answer to the question? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. PROD is supposed to be easy-come-easy-go. If you disagree with a PROD deletion you have the right to get it refunded. Since no harm is done, I don't see how it can be seen as disruptive. Reyk _YO! 08:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:PROD the prodded article should be left for seven days. It also says that the article creator should be notified ("ideally"). The policy page also says "The article is first checked and then deleted by an administrator 7 days after nomination." That suggests to me that it should be reviewed by an admin other than the prodder (even if the prodder happens to be an admin). Otherwise it isn't really much of a review. The harm is done if there is no review and articles get deleted improperly. If the article creator or another major contributor isn't aware that the article has been prodded, they don't have an opportunity to make their case or improvements. Candleabracadabra (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that PRODs should not be actioned by the nominator, like AfDs (CSD is different territory). Reyk makes a good point in that WP:REFUND applies, but PRODs are commonly declined by a potential deleting admin, so doing it yourself would remove a rather important, if unofficial, part of the process. Ansh666 09:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree. In fact I wouldn't mind if it were a formal rule that the tagger should not also be the deleter. I might add that even on CSDs I think it poor practice for an admin to simply delete instead of tagging, except in cases like blatant BLP attack pages, and perhaps blatant copyvios. I for one practice "tag & bag" where if I find an untagged page that seems to me to be appropriate for speedy deletion, I tag it in my role as an editor. I only delete in my role as an admin pages that others have tagged, after reviewing them to confirm that I think the deletion appropriate. Oh I also exempt G6 houskeeping, especially redirects deleted to make way for uncontested moves, there is no need to wait for more eyes on those, in my view. DES ^(talk) 14:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I should mention, I think it should be required for a PROD or CSD tagger to notify the creator (leaving aside the case where the creator is banned, when there is little point). Even if the creator does not log on in time to contest the action, it provides a record of what happened, instead of a mysterious vanishing of an article. Given the prevalence of scripts for such tagging today, notification is usually no more than one extra click or one preference stetting. If on Cad:CSD patrol I encounter a CSD where no notification has been done, I myself do the notification and do NOT delete the page, even if I otherwise would, I leave it for the next patroller instead, to give the creator some small amount of time. DES ^(talk) 14:16, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by involved admin: Just so everyone knows (pinging Candleabracadabra), I never deleted any article that I PRODed myself. So I'm not quite certain what In ictu oculi is talking about. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 14:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor have I. It would defeat the purpose of the procedure. DGG ( talk ) 15:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and I think you, I, and everyone else here agrees with that. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since i commented above, i would not want my comment taken as asserting that Coffee has in fact deleted a page that s/he tagged with PROD. I have seen nothing to indicate that this is so. I was merely commenting on best practices in general. DES ^(talk) 16:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I wouldn't be able to tell, though, since I can't see deleted revisions. Ansh666 09:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coffee, then who did prod Bartholomeus Ruloffs, Raffaele Mertes, Turgay Erdener, Phan Văn Hùm and Genie Pace? I had been assuming that you acted on your own A7? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can see, no-one proposed deletion of any of those pages. They were all deleted under CSD#A7 without prior tagging. The PROD procedure requires a waiting period, and generally the proposer will not be the deleter. The speedy deletion criteria outline cases where admins may delete articles immediately and without discussion. I see no barrier to an admin deleting a page under the speedy criteria without prior tagging. In both cases, courtesy notification of the article creator is recommended. I hope this helps. Bovlb (talk) 03:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bovlb, thanks, this strikes me as a more helpful answer than "I never deleted any article that I PRODed myself. So I'm not quite certain what In ictu oculi is talking about." Can you please link to where that is recommended for A7s? Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to assume Coffee did know what you were talking about. PRODs and SPEEDY deletions are quite different things. Deleting an article when you are the one who PRODed it may be a bit dubious, SPEEDY deleting an article without anyone nominating it is probably fairly common and consider normal by most admins. (Notice my wording here which is intentional. You can't delete an article under PROD without it ever having been nominated since it's obviously never a PROD in that case. You can SPEEDY an article if it meets the criteria, there's no real need for a nomination.) So there was likely genuine confusion at the time over what you were talking about, particularly as you had not specified which articles you were referring to at the time.

In other words, it's not unresonable for people to be confused when your explaination for what happend was wrong (or was something which never happened) and they have no easy way, without perhaps checking previous discussions and actions very carefully, to try and figure out what you're actually referring to.

I don't think anyone said there are any special recommendations for dealing A7s. Most of what was stated applies to all speedy deletions, as explained in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and also Wikipedia:Deletion process, with perhaps the exception that there are a few cases where notification is not required.

Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne the previous discussion was on this current page when I said "above", it has only since been archived into Archive256#User:Coffee. Also "in the case of sourced stubs (not talking about unsourced BLPs and other priority items - even though those get 7 days)," refers to the case of sourced stubs deleted without notification as mentioned above. No other case has been referenced.

Thank you for the comments on A7, which are informative. How then does the guidance In some cases, it would be appropriate to notify the page's creator of the deletion. work? It would seem pointless to notify The article you created has already gone. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When deleting an article under A7, it is common practice to notify the creator with a template like this one. This suggests that you can recreate the article if you can fix the problem. If you feel an article was deleted in error, I would suggest contacting the deleting admin in the first instance, and if that doesn't work out, fling a request for undeletion for deletion review.

As Nil, says, A7 and the examples you gave are concerned with speedy deletion which is entirely separate from proposed deletion. It looks like you've been confusing the two processes (and it is somewhat confusing to have three or more processes for deletion), and I think that has made it difficult for people to respond helpfully to this thread. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct - evidently this section was mistitled since I have understood the expression "prod" to mean any Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (WP:PROD) including proposed deletion using WP:SPEEDY templates. Also with several 1000s of article creations I have no experience of being followed by an editor silently deleting Google Book sourced stubs in this manner so had no exposure to the practice of implementing own A7s without notifications.

I have changed the section description to replace "Implementation of own prods" to "Non-templated speedy deletion of sourced articles" which I hope reflects your comments, and is a more accurate and complete description of the problem.

I am still not much nearer to understanding what went wrong in this series of un-notified blanking of print-sourced articles. Was it weak wording in the guidelines? or is it a result of replying to the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingdian (band) by pasting the text of the relevant guideline for examination? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to recap the situation so that we can identify the outstanding areas of concern and work to resolve them.

• On 2013-11-18, Coffee deleted five articles under WP:CSD#A7. [4] All five articles were created by In ictu oculi between 2013-10-17 and 2013-11-10. The deletions were not preceded by any CSD or PROD tagging. Coffee did not notify In ictu oculi about these deletions. At the time of deletion, all five articles were stubs, but included at least one offline source.
• So far as I can see, In ictu oculi did not raise these deletions either directly with the deleting admin, or with deletion review.
• At the same time, Coffee removed the autopatroller right from In ictu oculi, which was notified. In ictu oculi objected on his own talk page, but there was no response from Coffee.
• On 2013-11-19, Candleabracadabra started a thread on this board regarding In ictu oculi's autopatroller right (and other interactions between Coffee and Candleabracadabra). As a result, the rights were restored and all five articles were undeleted.

There are a number of interleaved issues here. The title you have given this section appears to identify the following issues:

1. Speedy deletion was not preceded by the addition of a template.
2. Articles were speedy deleted under A7 despite having sources.
3. Creator was not notified about the speedy deletion.

Is that a fair summary? Which issues do you feel still require resolution? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to note in the summary "So far as I can see, In ictu oculi did not raise these deletions either directly with the deleting admin, or with deletion review." - part of the problem was that User:Coffee did not indicate these deletions before going straight to moving to removal of user rights. It was left to other users to dig through Coffee's contributions and find them.

Also the summary is only half the history, the history goes back to this edit on 7 November where I responded to User Coffee's first AfD by pasting the guideline I believe it is this AfD that started Coffee's subsequent edits.

The issues which I feel still require resolution would be clarification of whether (1) non-templated speedy deletion of sourced articles without creator notification is appropriate (2) is User Coffee encouraged or disencouraged to do the same again to other long-standing Users. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you outlining (potential) issues OP has. I will, as an uninvolved admin, leave my two cents here for what it's worth. Admins do not need to add a template to an article that s/he deems meets the criteria for speedy deletion (hence the word "speedy" in the title). Again, speaking generally, articles that have references can still be deleted; it's a case-by-case thing. Lastly, notifying the article creator is usually a GoodThing™ but not always done (nor mandated). Killiondude (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To my understanding, I had already explained all of this in the previous thread... If anyone can point out where I missed something I'll gladly clarify further. But, at the moment this seems to just be a repetition of the previous thread, whereby any further points by myself here would be simply redundant. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Coffee, I did not mean to imply otherwise. The OP clearly feels that there is some unresolved issue, so I 'm trying my best to help them express it. Perhaps we won't be able to resolve it any further here, but hopefully we can at least reduce the frustration they're obviously feeling. Bovlb (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I feel violated. I could describe it that a User with only 6 stub creations and 18,942 edits followed a fellow editor making unnotified deletions and AfDs (e.g. of 9 Google Book-sourced stub articles, then misused admin tools to remove autopatroller from a User with 1,000 article creations none of which, to the best of my recollection, have ever been deleted or AfDed. This felt like WP:STALKING followed by an attack.

Also the issue of what appears to be a threat on User:Candleabracadabra's Talk page "Simply stating that sources exist, without providing them, is doing no more than making a vote which is irrelevant. As there weren't any sources provided for this article, I've deleted the article per the consensus in the discussion. Next time, please try to actually back up your arguments at AFD or they may be considered disruptive". - "or they may be considered disruptive" for stating that sources exist in a AFD debate? Seriously?

But what concerns me most is the User's completely unapologetic "run of the mill" attitude, as seen here in reply to User:StAnselm. If this behaviour is "run of the mill", then it suggests that this User has probably done it before and will do it again. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel violated, and regret that nothing I can say here will be adequate to salve that. With all due respect, a section on a board like this one isn't a good way to resolve multiple unrelated issues, so I hope you'll forgive me if I do not address the interactions between Coffee and Candleabracadabra further. Also, while I have the greatest respect for content contributors, I feel that we can more usefully discuss the actions involved here without comparing edit counts.

It seems to me that you are identifying the following issues:

You were not notified about the speedy deletions of your five articles

Coffee already explained in the earlier thread that they had intended you be notified and believed Twinkle would do so automatically. Twinkle preferences include a section under "Speedy deletion (CSD)" saying "Notify page creator only when tagging with these criteria:" where A7 is (I believe) checked by default. As I understand it, creator notification only takes place if this box is checked and also the "Notify page creator if possible" box is checked on the Twinkle CSD box. The latter box is checked by default when "Tag page only, don't delete" is checked, but is greyed out otherwise. I don't understand why that should be the case.

Articles were speedily deleted under A7 despite being sourced to books

Coffee's position is that the articles made no claim of notability. I personally would not have speedy deleted these articles, but their claim to significance is definitely borderline and I can see a good faith basis for Coffee's position. Sources and references are not an explicit part of the A7 criteria, although Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance does say that "the inclusion of reliable secondary sources sources may itself be an indication of significance". All five articles have now been undeleted, which reflects an assessment by those admins that the subjects are likely notable, and not necessarily an assessment that they included claims of notability at the time of deletion.

Speedy deletion is intended not only to be a lightweight way to delete qualifying articles, but also to allow for lightweight reversal. We'll never know now, but I suspect that had you simply contacted Coffee (or deletion review) promising to improve the claims of notability, then they would have been undeleted at least as swiftly.

An admin followed your contributions to delete five articles in one go

If you find a deletion-worthy article, it is normal practice to review other contributions by the same editor. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that these articles did qualify for A7, then such "following" is entirely appropriate, I'm afraid.

Your autopatroller right was removed, and this was described as "run of the mill"

Again, if we assume that the articles did qualify for A7, then it makes sense to me that the creator of five speedy-deletable articles in a few weeks should have their contributions scrutinized more closely by the community. Perhaps Coffee should have warned you. Perhaps they felt the issue had already been raised with you.

So, looking narrowly at these events, it comes down to some unexpected behaviour by Twinkle, and a disagreement about whether book-sourced stubs can qualify for A7. I recommend that:

• The Twinkle notification issue be investigated further for everyone's benefit;
• In ictu oculi tries to create articles that are less stubby, and include a clear claim of significance; and
• Administrators applying A7 consider the significance indicated by sources.

I hope this is helpful to you. Bovlb (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bovlb,

I'm sure you mean well, but not really, no, I was there remember, you weren't. So for example you've missed the first event in the chain.

Do you mind, please excuse me, can I just ask does your role replying here relate to a function of Wikipedia help desk volunteers, Wikipedian recent changes patrollers? Or as an article contributor here as I am? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Bolvb's fairly comprehensive assessment (with which I concur, I might add) hasn't helped you, then what exactly are you looking for? You opened this thread to ask whether users could act on their own PRODs, and when it was established that you had confused the PROD process and the speedy deletion process, continued to ask whether admins could delete articles under the sppedy deletion criteria without first tagging them or notifying the page creator - you have been answered: yes on both counts. If your purpose in continuing this thread is, as it appears to me, to angle again for some sort of sanctions against Coffee, then the response will be the same as in the previous thread on that subject. If you want clarification of some issue beyond what Bolvb has explained above, then you need to ask for it, instead of simply claiming that you haven't been helped. What, precisely, do you want? Yunshui 雲‍水 12:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this RfC? [5]. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Closed per SNOW. Thanks anyway. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please will someone userfy Notion Capital, a recent PROD, to User:Pigsonthewing/Notion Capital, where I intend to rewrite and develop it. I believe notability can easily be established. I declare an interest and will do so again when I ask the community to review and republish the improved article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why you have not asked the deleting admin (i.e. me) directly? GiantSnowman 12:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only that I thought I'd get a more prompt response here. thanks for doing the userfication. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now requested review and restoration of the improved article, at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Notion Capital.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Please don't block me" was included in my now archived post, but now it's more along the lines of "please answer me". User:TParis is ignoring me (or either he is quite slow, to my mind). The WMF knows who I am. My VPN software might be on right now. But I don't think, even if it is, I've done anything wrong by making this edit from an open proxy (if that's what my VPN software does) because I think there was a misunderstanding in TParis' mind by the verbiage he left on my user talk page. Do I need to escalate this to the WMF legal department to get a straight answer? I'm absolutely befuddled by the volunteer community, if that's who I've been communicating with. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see from TParis on your talk page is a templated message that's given as part of the process of granting IP block exemption — that's probably why he gave you two section headers, since I'd guess that the template leaves its own header. Please be a little more specific by giving the name of the section whose verbiage you're discussing. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. I see nothing that TParis needs to respond to - you were granted IPBE, I see no action required by anyone, and no response required by anyone, anywhere. Could you provide diffs/links to the EXACT places where you're waiting for things? ES&L 13:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Biosthmors - VPN is not the same as an open proxy. If you are using VPN then your use of IPBE is fine. If you are using an open proxy or TOR, then it is not. But until your last email which I received in the middle of a 102.4 degree fever (notice that I also didn't respond to several others) that I realized you probably are confused what VPN software actually does. So why don't you explain what exactly you are VPN'd into and why you think it's using an open proxy? Whose network are you connecting to? No one is threatening you with a block, certainly not me especially. If IPBE is going to be this stressful to you, would you prefer we just remove it?--v/r - TP 14:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:TParis, thanks for your reply and I hope you feel better. I'm not in a rush, so feel free to sit on this. I will go ahead and email you the name of the VPN software that automatically starts when I start my computer. I'd rather not share it publicly. Is that OK? Before I requested the user right, and when the VPN software was activated, it blocked me from editing due to some sort of proxy/open proxy jazz. Because of this auto-blocking, I was prompted to ask for the user right. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And FYI, right now my VPN software is saying it isn't active, but it is partially acting like it is active. I've never seen it behave this way, so I can't exclude the possibility that this very edit might be coming from an open proxy, whatever that means, even though my software says it is not active. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• @Biosthmors: What exactly is the question you want a straight answer to? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) Am I or am I not allowed to edit from an open proxy, due to the user rights request I submitted through the mechanism I used? And 2) does my VPN software use an open proxy? I emailed my software details to TParis. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you shouldn't edit through an open proxy. The addresses you're editing through are not open proxies - they belong to a web hosting company. Many web hosting address ranges have been blocked because they can be used like open proxies, but they can also be used by VPN providers, so as far as I can see, you're fine. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • DoRD, you're awesome. Thanks for the clarification. I trust that my VPN software will not get me in trouble then. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had very much hoped that the Anime and manga franchise coverage RfC could resolve the content and conduct disputes between ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong, other Anime and Manga WikiProject participants, and which had spawned several threads on this board and AN/I several over the past few years. Unfortunately, due to an evaporation of goodwill and a renewing of open hostilities between the involved parties, I no longer believe that the RfC will be fruitful, and have withdrawn from the RfC (announcement).

If any uninvolved admins would like to close that RfC, I would greatly appreciate your efforts. To those parties that were planning on taking the issue to ArbCom, and put those plans on hold because of the RfC, I no longer have any objections to you continuing forward with those plans.

Thank you, Sven Manguard Wha? 22:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not go down this road. An unrelated dispute blown out of proportions by a third party should not be the nail in the coffin for the RFC.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Manguard So, with the RfC that was proposed during the last drag out fight at AN* was had between the involved editors has failed are you willing to consider the Scorched Earth topic/interaction bans that were proposed last time?

Topic/Interaction bans were indefinite topic (broadly construed over Anime,Manga,Japanese Culture) and interaction (Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri)

Also you forgot to notify Chris. I have taken care of this for you. Hasteur (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur: I really didn't want to get into this before the ArbCom case, but if we can set up something that will prevent an ArbCom case, that's less stress for everyone.

Ultimately, my personal feeling is that the way that Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri seem to get at each other all the time, all over the project, at the very least an indefinite interaction ban is needed. But I'm not sure that goes far enough. At the RfC page, Ryulong objected to my, for lack of a better term, giving up on the proceedings by saying that "A dispute regarding the content of race in America should not end this discussion at all". He's missing my point. Somehow the two of them managed to find each other in a dispute that is entirely separated from Anime and Manga, in an area that, as far as I know, neither of them worked in before. ChrisGualtieri made a revert on that (Knockout (violent game))page eight days before using automated tools, and might have had it on his watchlist, but if he saw Ryulong come along and start making major changes, he should have backed off and let someone else handle it. Ryulong, once he saw that ChrisGualtieri was reverting him, should have backed off and let someone else handle it. The two of them should know that every time they edit the same article, they fight. And yet they wind up doing it anyways.

I would support the following package of sanctions:

• An two-way interaction ban between Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri
• A topic ban from anime and manga topics (but not on Japanese culture topics) for both Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri
• A topic ban from deletion and merge discussions for both Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri
• A 1RR restriction for both Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri (for manual edits only, not counting vandalism fighting using tools)
• All restrictions are indefinite, but can be appealed after at least six months

I don't think anything short of that will solve the problem. Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri need to stay away from each other, and need to stay out of the area that their intractable dispute has poisoned, and need to stay away from the behaviors (revert warring and deletion/merge discussions) have led to their battleground mentality. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had added Japanese culture in the package for the reason that the topics of Anime and Manga could be wiki-lawyered around and proxy fights on "Reactions to PROPERTY" type articles. I foresee the fight being carried to these topics as one editor or annother "claims" it for their own which excludes the other from editing the page. I do agree that the 6 month appeal of sanctions is appropriate, but as was mentioned in the last AN thread, there were Diva-like threats, so I don't expect a great improvement in the conduct of these editors Hasteur (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you need to include Lucia Black in any sanctions, and propose the following tweaks:

• Two-way and three-way interaction bans between any combination of Lucia Black, Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri
• A topic ban from anime and manga topics (but not on Japanese culture topics) for Lucia, Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri
• A topic ban from deletion and merge discussions for Lucia, Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri
• A 1RR restriction for Lucia Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri (for manual edits only, not counting vandalism fighting using tools)
• All restrictions are indefinite, but can be appealed after at least twelve months
• Ryulong to be prohibited from obtaining or using Rollback for at least twelve months following misuse of the tool to edit war recently (for which he was blocked for 24 hours).

The topic bans I feel need to specifically include a ban on vandal fighting on those topics, because I'm far from convinced they wouldn't use that as an excuse to revert edits by others and wikilawyer their way around the topic ban.

There needs to be a standard set of sanctions, rapidly increasing in duration each time. Nick (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no point in involving me. My topic ban had just been relieved. Unless you find more evidence of innapropriate behaviour coming fro m me between Chris and Ryulong, i find it to be undeserved. AKA Double jeopardy.Lucia Black (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick: The reason why I haven't included Lucia in the set is from my perspective since she came off the official topic ban, she's kept her head down for the most part (and hadn't boiled over to AN*. She's been tangentially references in this ongoing discussion, but without digging into the individual atoms of the current dispute, I'm going to assume that she's taken the advice of the previous topic ban and is considering her actions carefully. Hasteur (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(←) Lucia Black has a point here. Past sanctions and the behavior that caused them are, in and of themselves, not grounds for future sanctions. Otherwise, what is the point of setting expiration dates on sanctions? If Lucia Black becomes a problem editor in the area, it would be easy enough to add her in, but we should not be doing that until there's evidence of that. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• sigh* What a surprise. I predicted this would end up at arbcom eventually. At the core you have Chris who wants to improve (and has, massively) the quality of Wikipedia's manga and anime articles, faced with Ryulong who wants to keep them in some sort of stasis of mediocrity. I have generally supported Chris since I encountered him because of his intent and willingness to take on a task against entrenched opposition. Mediation was never going to work, because it does not matter what reasoning or policy based discussion Chris uses with Ryulong, Ryulong just changes position and comes back with a different reason not to improve the articles. In short, interaction ban yes, but dont go topic banning one of the few people actually willing to put in the hard work on bringing the quality up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from ChrisGualtieri - Ryulong and I have already resolved our issues in private two days ago. We have both come to an agreement about the two project spaces. Ryulong himself will make that clear - and we did so right after his 24 block from AN3 that I did not file. I was about to bring it Arb Com, it was ready to go and save for Ryulong's contacting of me... I was going to do that instead of letting another drama like this occur. Ryulong has asked for assistance in his editing space and acknowledges that A&M is equally problematic - we may disagree, but we have finally agreed that neither is out to destroy Wikipedia and if becoming his ally on the admittedly terrible Tokusatsu articles than the MOSAM situation and the entire A&M dispute has come to an end. And don't consider Lucia Black in this thing at all. We've patched that up and worked together to get Ghost in the Shell (video game) to near GA standards and Ghost in the Shell (film) is now a GA and that was a joint effort. I'm not out to make enemies and the three of us have finally understood each other. Close the RFC, but not because it failed, but because the disagreement has been resolved and all parties acknowledge the communities consensus. The metrics may not be worked out, but I feel that this rough period is over and some third-party dispute on a page I responded to an editor's request online should not have been the "kill" action. My thin-skin about a certain "topic" is more of my own problem - and Ryulong did not intend it as such. And contrary to what some people have expressed - I do not want Ryulong gone, while I was considering Arb Com to make the decision, it seems unnecessary. Everyone can drop the pitch forks and look forward to 30 A&M GA's making their way up as soon as the Tokusatsu thing is dealt with to Ryulong's satisfaction. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I did indeed contact ChrisGualtieri offsite two days ago and we came to an agreement as to what should be done and I implored for his assistance in cleaning up another topic area. Also, Nick, your statement that I should be banned from obtaining rollback rights is unfounded, as in the dispute that I was blocked for edit warring recently I did not use said rights in the first place. I don't see why it had to be revoked in the first place but whatever. I should be using the installed twinkle rollback for everything that I had been using rollback in the first place. Only in death, your summarization of what you see as my position on this site is insulting. I do not want these pages to "stagnate". I just have a different opinion as to how they should be laid out. And call it WP:Diva if you want but a topic ban from my entire editing area will drive me off the site for good. This place isn't worth the stress it causes.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy it, honestly. Your willingness to cooperate with each other appears to be directly proportional to how close the two of you are to being sanctioned. How many times is this now that you've resolved your issues? Why couldn't these issues have been resolved weeks ago when the RfC was started, or a few weeks after that when the two of you started participating in the second part of the RfC? Why couldn't you have worked out your differences before the blowout that led to the discussion that led to the RfC? Or after any of the previous blowouts before that? In talking with other users since starting this thread, the consistent theme that I've gotten is that everyone else got tired of the two of you a long time ago, and that trying to broker a solution that kept the two of you from getting topic or site banned was never going to work. Right now, call me jaded, but I find myself agreeing with them.

You want to convince me that this is real? Fine, here's what to do. I want both of you to voluntarily accept the interaction and topic bans that I set out above, as a year-long suspended sentence. As long as the two of you either work together without fighting, or simply stay away from each other, until the end of 2014, the sanctions won't be applied. But if the two of you pick up where you left off before this began, and you two get dragged back to this page for fighting with each other or causing disruption to Anime and Manga topics through battleground behavior (edit warring, merging and splitting articles without getting prior consensus, etc.), and an uninvolved admin agrees that you've crossed the line, then the package of sanctions goes into effect. No arguments, no last minute reconciliations, the package goes into effect and stays in effect for at least six months.

If you agree to that, I'll give you one more chance. If not, as far as I'm concerned, you had your last chance at the RfC and blew it. Heck, at this point I'm not sure that the rest of the community will even buy this as a solution, but if it solves the problems you two are causing, they might. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm an unrelated third-party in all of this. Ryu and Chris may remember me as that guy that pops up from time to time when discussions like this happen. If I may add my two cents, I've been watching a good portion of this drama unfold between Ryu and various parties ever since I was alerted to his ongoing (at the time) habit of reacting fairly confrontational with other editors. I was surprised to learn that Ryu is a former administrator; I would never expect the kind of quarreling he's done from an admin, former or otherwise. I then popped up when Ryu had an AN/I discussion started about him concerning said behavior. Ryu said he would straighten up his act and I thought it was a good intervention on all sides. But lo and behold, after that we have a gigantic RfC, a 24-hour block, removal of Rollback rights and a slew of AfD's created by Chris that seemed personally directed at Ryu.

This entire thing is a mess. As it stands from my perspective, Ryu's been taking far too much personal stake in his edits and reacts very arrogantly towards others. On the other hand, it seems like Chris is something of an enabler that just pours fuel on the fire to continue this drama between them. While I do not have the entire scope of the problem, from what it sounds like to me, this 'scorched earth' idea may just be the best way to go. It's unfortunate that two passionate editors should be blocked/heavily restricted for a long span of time, but with the way things have gone, it seems necessary. As I said on Ryu's AN/I, I don't think either of them are "bad" editors, but their passion for editing can very quickly turn heated. Antoshi ☏ ★ 04:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong actually voted to delete the card articles I tagged with deletion. These are ones he actually made.[6][7][8] We discussed this and some of the others should be merged instead of being deleted. I think only one was really questionable on his end and I've asked for it to be withdrawn.[9] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We have never resolved our problems prior. This isn't some "let's be buddies" for the moment and go back to fighting one another. As I write this, I am trying to get WP:TOKUSATSU's Wikiproject setup working so its not such a pain to maintain it. The two of us may not particularly agree on everything, but we both recognize that each other wants Wikipedia to be better and Ryulong has asked for help in the area - I'm willing to wade into something I don't understand and try and help because Ryulong agreed that MOSAM needs an overhaul and we'll work it out AFTER Tokusatsu is fixed. Ryulong's daily tasks are overwhelming for any editor and I don't think many of us (I know I sure didn't) understand how bad some of these articles get when he turns his back away. Though with that being said... I don't think "fear" is a great weapon to wield, when my differences with Lucia were resolved without some suspended noose around our necks. This isn't the Cuban missile crisis and given that the community would either be done with one or both of us than resolve the problem has shown a clearly different and alternate resolution: Either work together or one or both of our topic areas get much much worse. I don't personally like the thought, but the last "issue" in the project space has been resolved through the calm interactions of each other. If the "RFC" must be closed by this mess, it wasn't going to change that both of us acted civilly and proper and a clear consensus on the main issue was resolved and no amount of time was going to get a further metric for it. And I think the fact Ryulong hasn't "blown up" over nominating over a dozen articles for AFD and single-handedly altering and building up the Wikiproject's categories and tagging, labeling and sorting them is a pretty good sign that we are working together. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And honestly Sven, I told you we resolved our issues before your dramatic post about us. The two of us worked it out and hence my surprise when I found this. Though I have been watching that Knockout page since November 12th.[10] I noticed an IP inserting racially charged text not found in the specific source and make a note at User_talk:72.92.132.215, he reverted me than reverted himself and I thanked him for doing so and dropped a welcome/help template. Race is a sensitive subject for me and I took offense without realizing Ryulong did not intend it as such, its not the end of the world. Misunderstandings happen, but the "issue" was not even tangentially related to A&M or Japan, so I'm not sure why there is this drama when we haven't done anything "dramatic" since prior to the RFC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • By bringing up off-Wiki conversations, you are putting me in a difficult position, ChrisGualtieri. I strongly believe that, unless the other party agrees to it, off-Wiki conversations should remain off-Wiki. I hadn't planned on mentioning it publicly, but I will say that I had a forty minute long conversation over IRC with someone closely involved in this dispute, which took place immediately before I withdrew from the RfC and started this thread. That conversation is also why I am reluctant to believe that you and Ryulong have truly patched things up. Unless this issue goes to ArbCom, in which case I will likely be compelled to provide details, I won't publicly reveal who I had the conversation with or what it was about. While it would make my life much easier, and would make it very clear to everyone else exactly why I lost confidence in this issue being resolved, it would also change this conversation in a way that doesn't benefit anyone. I was content to sit on that conversation, to not let everyone know that there even was one, and take the PR hit that came with that. I know that the 3RR block thing wasn't a big enough deal on its own to derail the RfC, but I was willing to pretend that it was the main reason that I backed out of the RfC, because, despite my better judgement, I still want to see this thing resolved without a bunch of people getting banned. I'm at my wits end though; I'm tired of trying to broker a solution here. At this point, I really don't care how it's resolved. But if I see another ChrisGualtieri vs. Ryulong thread on AN or AN/I, ever again, I'm going to recommend a full site ban for at least a year. The community has had enough, and I'm not going to fight to keep the two of you around any more. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Off-wiki? Huh? Since you sorta spilled that contact I'll be open, its no shame nor secret. I mentioned it in IRC on 1 line; but you did not respond to it and I thought you didn't even read it. It was hours before my question on portals was answered. Now if a question on portals is privileged, I apologize, but I don't care about IRC or whatever misunderstanding that exists here. Forty minute long conversation about us? So what. I made my peace at A&M and that was what I meant - IRC is semi-offwiki, semi-on, but I don't know what provoked the response above. Whatever conversation you had, it obviously upset you. I still believe the RFC was a success and mirror Ryulong's comment about it - which is why given the situation I was surprised about the above drama. If you know that some 3RR thing which is unrelated to the A&M and not even filed by me is enough to sink everything that's a bit sad. Though that misunderstanding preceded our breakthrough and alliance - the community has demonstrated that it cannot resolve our problems satisfactorily and that whatever disagreements we individually have no amount of DRN, RFC, ANI, Mediation and likely ArbCom will ever result in something mutually agreeable. Yes, I was tempted by the community's ability to force a decision to end it by overwhelming consensus, but aside from an already seemingly agreed upon stance the actual specifics are of only interest to about four people. For the next six months, let us work together - if it breaksdown fast-track an interaction ban, but I don't say "things are resolved" without meaning it. Ryulong's stressed out enough by this too, but its been handled and if the Tokusatsu alliance and positive response to the AFDs and Ryulong's own desire to reform the area isn't indicative that we've come to a clear agreement I don't know what is. Just give it a few months off the drama pages and you'll see that this is for real. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The conversation you're referring to is most certainly not the one I was referring to. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Alright, I've had enough. If an admin wants to close the RfC, that would be much appreciated. There are people that see a workable consensus there, and if that's the case, we should definitely not waste it. I personally, however, am beyond done with this issue. I put a lot of time into the RfC, I put a lot of time into this discussion, and I don't feel that any of that time ended up resulting in something constructive. Until the ArbCom case, I have no intention of speaking to or about Ryulong or ChrisGualtieri again, and I have no plans to become further involved in this or any related threads. To whomever winds up picking up the pieces here, good luck. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep mentioning ArbCom when Chris and I have buried the hatchet?—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because the effort you two make to get along (as mentioned above) appears to be directly proportional to how close the two of you are to being sanctioned. Existing community policies have not succeeded in diffusing the no holds barred battle field that you two present, and the last time community endorsed sanctions were proposed they were short circuited for this last chance RFC. In my counting this has been the 3rd or 4th RFC held over this issue with each one being a failure to get the space to be settled down and to have you and Chris not at each others throats and at a various form of DR (DRN,3O, RfC, AN, AN/EW, ANI, etc.) every few weeks because one or the other throws a tantrum and those outside the topic space have to sort it out. Hasteur (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those admins who sometimes help out with protected edit requests, you may be interested to know that we now have a new template, {{edit template-protected}}, for making edit requests to template-protected pages. These requests can be viewed at Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests, and can be answered by any editor with the template editor user right. There is also an annotated list of edit requests automatically updated by AnomieBOT at User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable. You can put this on your watchlist to see when new requests have been made. Requests made with the {{edit template-protected}} template won't show up in CAT:EP, so if you think that the category is looking more empty than usual, that may be why. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 206.127.96.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please be wary of "backwards text" vandalism, see above for examples.

The vandalism changes the text to backwards, but without any additions or removals it doesn't show up as really anything modified as far as green/red text added/subtracted.

Dunno if there's a specific abuse filter or vandalism monitor way to check for this.

Perhaps someone could help and alert vandal patrol boards about this?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I generally try to take a look at "(0)" edits on my watchlist, just because of nonsense like this (although I've never seen this specific kind of vandalism). Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ykaens yrev woH... I've blocked the IP listed above. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is that done? The code looks as if nothing got changed, unlike if I spent a ridiculous amount of time to retype everything backward. Perhaps the insertion of some weird control character meant to support Bi-directional text? Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lmth.rotareneG-txeT-esreveR/moc.cinahcemtxet//:ptth gnidulcni ,gniht fo tros siht od taht seitilitu ffo dna enilno suoirav era erehT .dnuora dehctiws gnieb yllaer era srettel eht ,oN _{Hint: click on the link; it still works)} --Guy Macon (talk) 03:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nytend, they are adding a Unicode format charater, such as a right-to-left mark. It adds three bytes (the size of the RLM in UTF-8) to the file size, but it is a zero-width formatting character, so it does not show up as a visible new character in a diff, and it has no effect beyond a new line. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 03:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder, WP:VisualEditor has had at least one bug that causes this unexpectedly, and bug regressions are an unfortunate fact of life. Usually, people notice the problem and try to fix it before saving, but if you see this on an edit tagged with "VisualEditor", then please let me know at WP:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If bug regressions are an unfortunate fact of life, the developers and testers need to start running an automated regression test every night. This changes the fact of life into a fairly rare occurrence. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2007, I joined Wikipedia under the username Stevoisiak. While I never created a userpage for the account, the edit history can still be viewed. Unfortunately, I have since forgotten my password, and I never associated an email address with the account, so it is inaccessible. So instead, I made a new account, Stevoisiake, which I have used since.

I have read policy pages on username conflicts, and am aware that user accounts cannot be merged, and that under normal circumstances, a user cannot rename his account if the desired username has already been created. So if a merging of the two accounts is not possible, would it be possible to rename my current account if my old account was closed? If so, that is what I would like to do.

I have little concrete proof that I was the one who created the Wikipedia account Stevoisiak. However, what I can prove is that I own the username Stevoisiak on other sites. These include my YouTube account from 2007, my Twitter account, my Steam account from 2008, my Hotmail account, my Gmail account, my TF2 Wiki account from 2010, my DeviantArt account from 2008, and my Reddit account from 2011, among many others.

Thank you for your time.

--Stevoisiak(e) (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't possible to close or delete accounts here. The only thing that can be done in this situation is usurpation, but for that you would need a bureaucrat rather than an administrator. Hut 8.5 21:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the recent Featured article review of the Natalee Holloway article, this articlespace editnotice (since removed) came to my attention:

• Edit notice on Holloway.

It was on the article for more than three years. I raised this query in a thread at ANI, but got no response; since the template was removed three days ago, it is no longer an "incident", but there are still issues to be clarified.

I had never encountered such an editnotice in articlespace, and didn't realize it could even be done. When I investigated, I learned that a) only an admin can place or edit an editnotice in articlespace, and b) there are editnotices on many articles where there are arbcom sanctions in place. I am not aware of any FA or article where there are not sanctions in place having a "warning" notice to this effect, although I have found some that include a mention of the date formatting used in the article.

Besides needing clarification on the issue of whether this level of "warning" about editing an FA because, essentially, "admins are watching" is appropriate or should be happening on other FAs, I'd also like followup on a) whether the most involved admin with the article should be placing an editnotice like this or who can place them, and b) considering our stance on admins being just like any other editor patrolling an article except as it relates to the use of tools, why the wording about "admins" having to clean up (anyone can clean up), which might be intimidating and off-putting. If this went on in an FA without even me (considering my involvement in the FA process) knowing it, how many other FAs might have followed suit? Others might now realize they can do this, or have done this. Here we have the ability on Wikipedia for an admin to influence editing on an article where s/he is the principle editor, without the broader community even becoming aware of it unless they edit the article.

Should we have these kinds of editnotices, should they be placed by admins involved with the article, and is there a way for us to find out how many of these are out there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of editnotices, but many of them simply notify editors of existing discretionary sanctions (e.g. on Israeli-Palestinian articles). The editnotice in question probably crossed the line into inappropriateness, but since it's been blanked (and given the level of acrimony in the recent WP:AN/I discussion) it's probably better to focus on the more general question of appropriate guidelines for editnotices. MastCell ^Talk 23:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is precisely the problem: there is not much said at Wikipedia:Editnotice. (We editconflicted as I was cleaning up my post to make it more general-- I had copied it from the earlier ANI which was too specific.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience edit notices are increasingly used in place of hidden comments, particularly for issues which affect most of the article or in recent articles on developing situations, to remind edits to require proper sourcing etc. Probably the strange thing about that edit notice was the mention of admins, it did seem out of place since it won't just be admins fixing the problems. I don't personally see a problem with reminding edits that poor quality may mean a burder on other editors. IIRC an editnotice was used in the Bradley Manning article while fullprotection was applied, that seems to be one of the few cases when mentioning admins would be appropriate. Perhaps editnotices are less important for FAs although they could potentially be cases without sanctions where they would be helpful.Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Editnotices/Page/Amy Pond for an example I'm thinking of or Template:Editnotices/Page/Aslan (disambiguation) or Template:Editnotices/Page/69 (sex position) (not ones I think I've seen myself before) or Template:Editnotices/Page/Anders Behring Breivik (which I may have seen and I do know there was a fair amount of discussion over the issue if not the editnotice). Of course other than date formatting issues, their use in language ones is perhaps also not uncommon, e.g. Template:Editnotices/Page/Air New Zealand and perhaps more important Template:Editnotices/Page/Ape Escape (video game). Something slightly different but which was I presume deemed useful at least at one time Template:Editnotices/Page/Antonin Scalia.

P.S. Without commenting specifically on the appropriateness of any of these cases, nor suggesting that we as a community have to use them, wasn't one of the intentions of the development of editable editnotices their usage on articles? At least I've always assumed that since I first saw them since while helpful, they seemed not so important for talk pages, noticeboards, userpages etc particularly from the foundation POV. I also see from Wikipedia:Editnotice that there are a bunch of templates Template:Editnotice templates and Category:Editnotice templates, I think at least two of the earlier examples used these.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for more samples, which are all illuminating examples of effective ways to use editnotices. I wasn't even aware before the Holloway FAR that they were placed on articles, and now see that there are gaps in the guidelines about their application in articles at Wikipedia:Editnotice. Since this example has come to light, I am thinking we will see more FAs using them, with wording along the lines of WP:OWN#Featured articles. That is the one of the areas where I think some admin discussion of the broader issues would be helpful; that page needs to be expanded to include discussion of appropriate use of the template in ways that don't further ownership. I edit numerous Featured articles that have recurring issues and new editors don't always read the talk page FAQ. Another related issue is that I would have to request an admin to place an editnotice on one of those articles. Where would one make such a request, at ANI or here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• [ec: Good morning Sandy!] I wouldn't object on principle to (such) an edit notice, but the mention of "administrators" in there is superfluous and possibly rhetorically loaded ("chilling effect"). I don't think we need more guidelines; I think the regular editing process can take care of it--though in this case very belatedly. Drmies (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Drmies! Ok, to specifics, would the wording at WP:OWN#Featured articles be appropriate for an editnotice an FAs? If that is the case, then perhaps the appropriate forum for non-admin requests might be at WT:FAC. Or should we run a bot to do all of them? Or do we individually approach an admin we know? Or do we subst a template? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with the edit notice. It could be phrased differently, but it was neutrally written and correct on policy. GregJackP Boomer! 16:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of an editnotice conveying this kind of message; in my opinion, the only problem with this editnotice is the comma splice and other grammar problems. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an editnotice to U.S. Route 131 (template-editors can add them, not just admins, btw), only because a section of the highway was rerouted. Once MDOT updates their maps online, I can revise the article to account for the change in mileage, etc. Until that update, I don't want every IP out there "being nice" and making a mess of those figures because "they're wrong!" or something. I offer that as just another example of where they can be useful, especially on FAs where stability and consistency is important. Imzadi 1979 → 18:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As a bit of a tangent, it's worth noting that +ACC (in addition to template editors) can and do create editnotices, which may effect wording somewhat. Kevin Gorman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Kevin Gorman, I don't know what you mean by +ACC. Could someone give me the dummies 101 version of what Kevin is saying? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He means users with the "accountcreator" right. This is a side-effect of how create-protection of editnotices are implemented: through the title blacklist. Accountcreators are not subject to the blacklist (since it also prevents user account creation, and would hinder them in their tasks) and so can create editnotices. I don't know if that's a legit thing or just a known side-effect though. As far as the procedure, I know that people have asked me to add editnotices to pages in the past (mostly Bishonen, for some reason, who can do it herself), and I've complied with the requests when they seem reasonable. Not a big deal, really. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are the same as Drmies's: only the bit about administrators seems off. This sort of notice might be useful, really, in helping good-faith editors add cited material to FAs. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I added something not unlike this to Elk (also an FA) in order to prevent the same discussion from repeating itself umpteen billion times. It is worth noting that while only certain users can create these, once they are created anyone can edit them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're wrong there, Beeblebrox. I just tried to edit Template:Editnotices/Page/Elk, and MediaWiki wouldn't let me. --Floquensock (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the page notice for Elk.
This editnotice can only be created or edited by administrators, accountcreators, and template editors.
To request a change to the page, add {{edit protected}} to the talk page, followed by a description of your request. I'm surprised, because I too thought that anyone could edit editnotices after they're created. My only userrights are IP block exempt (since my main account is an admin) and autoconfirmed. Nyttend backup (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editing an editnotice requires the same blacklist override that creating one does, since the "noedit" flag has been set for editnotices in its blacklist entry. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's my bad I guess. I could have sworn that some of the edit notices had made had been modified by users without any superpowers. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see clear consensus that other than the wording about Admins, the notice is appropriate, needed, and accurate per policy. I think they should be added to all FA's as standard. Perhaps someone is willing to be bold and suggest this be mentioned in a guideline as standard procedure? Regardless if it is spelled out, it should become our standard, I do not have the statistics on how many FAs have lost their status, but I would wager it is because of continual inane editing. I once saw the numbers someone got together on how many GAs have lost their status and it was quite a lot more than I was aware of; Im curious how many FAs have if we looked into it.Camelbinky (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to redirect BIIT to Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi#Barani Institute of Information Technology. Also Barani Institute of Information Technology (if that page is protected, I haven't looked yet) to Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi#Barani Institute of Information Technology. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nyttend (talk) 00:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]