Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive239

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


RFC to be closed[edit]

RFC expired here, can an admin close Talk:Plasma_cosmology#Requests_for_comment_2? Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Article move request[edit]

Please move Thomas Frederic Cheeseman to Thomas Frederick Cheeseman - 'Frederic' should end in a 'k' Thank you Paul venter (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking quickly at the sources, it appears they are split roughly 50/50 between "Frederic" and "Frederick". I'd suggest starting a requested move discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Is this move in any way controversial? Starting a requested move discussion is a way of stalling any move for at least 7 days, and the current backlog appears to add a month to that. As the requested move page says, "In some situations, the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. It is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: you can start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead." However, some seem to think AT policy forces "Any potentially controversial" moves through RM: see the discussion at WT:AT#RM not required. This increases the admin workload for no evident benefit. . . dave souza, talk 21:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Is there need for haste? Is something happening in the next month that would require the article to be renamed immediately? The articles not going anywhere. We have nothing but time.--JOJ Hutton 22:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Judging by the backlog of about a month, we lack the time to keep moves up to date. Why overload the system with uncontested and uncontroversial moves? . . dave souza, talk 23:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Well then be bold and see what comes of it.If its challenged then you are at no worse loss than you are now.--JOJ Hutton 02:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It it potentially controversial because (a) the person who created the article obviously thought this was a better title and (b) the sources are split. Making moves, instead of move discussions, when we know there's a reasonable chance someone might object is often how we get into shitty move warring situations. I'm not really sure why you're dragging up the WT:AT discussion when that has to do with using RfCs as a substitute for RM. As regards the backlog, we're struggling a bit at the moment, mainly (IMO) due to RM bot being down – any help from experienced admins such as yourself would be much appreciated. Jenks24 (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RM says it is not always necessary to formally request a move in these circumstances: you can start an informal discussion at the article's talk page instead, so I've done that.[1] There are useful discussions at WT:AT on how to improve the wording: it's made me aware that this is a bit of a bureacratic fankle with procedures I'm unfamiliar with, but that at least moves this particular request forward. . dave souza, talk 09:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit filter[edit]

We don't need this on every noticeboard in the project. Yes, large numbers of editors were hit by this within the space of a few minutes. It's already at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Is Wikipedia:Edit filter playing up?, there's a big notice at the top of Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives, and Reaper Eternal already knows about the problem. Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Judging by the number of requests in the last ten minutes, smth is wrong with the filter. Could somebody pls urgently have a look? Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to second that. I got a false positive just a minute ago and didn't bother reporting it. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 13:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal Attack (2º)[edit]

User:Trasamundo not stop his personal attacks over me. Now accuses me 2 times that I "sabotage" wikipedia. I'm getting personal attacks before in Talk:Spanish_Empire, which are repeated in last Trasamundo intervention. In the same talk he called me "Sockpuppet" in 4 times In this latter occasion he accuses me that I "sabotage" wikipedia.

Cited (Trasamundo):

  • "So any accusation by Santos30 to others about original research it is simply a comical childish tantrum as if a child is denied a candy.."
  • "this is the strategy of this individual, so that the page will be blocked, and nobody can edit, which is a full-scale sabotage in wikipedia.."
  • "I know that when the protection period expires Santos30 will recommence his sabotage in wikipedia.."

This is his last edition where he accused me twice of sabotage. Thank you.--Santos30 (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Being called a sock without filing an WP:SPI is uncivil, but not a personal attack. Being accused of sabotage is uncivil, but not a personal attack as per the definition. This is WP:WQA territory ... dangerouspanda 20:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Please, How I can stop "uncivil" behavior of Trasamundo in the talk?. Thank you--Santos30 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC). OK I will ask in WP:WQA. Thanks.--Santos30 (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Being called a sock without any evidence is, in my view, a personal attack ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."). That said, I did not look to see whether Trasamundo provided any evidence. In addition, I note that an SPI report has been filed by another editor concerning Santos30.--Bbb23 (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Jaontiveros: who supporting User:Trasamundo in the dispute ,"agree with Trasamundo", and tries to help him to stop the Talk,and impose their views through a banned from wikipedia english, repeating the uncivil behavior seek a penalty on me trying to find any improper purpose and here. I make a report in Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance.
Jaontiveros talk about User Retired in, not expulsed before and not involved in the discussion, and Jaontiveros not say that Trasamundo gives and recive in strong support from User:Durero, who said these ugly words about Wikipedia.en after revert me and delete the map, kick me and block the talk. Then, User:Escarlati, supporter of user Durero in, delete POV template.
--Santos30 (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:AIV[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could an admin please help with the current backlog at WP:AIV? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need an admin to undo a moved article mess[edit]

Uncle G has saved the day. Kurtis (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:OZODOR performed some kind of complicated move between Roosevelt High, Roosevelt High (CTA station), and Roosevelt/Wabash (CTA station) which finished with the article at Roosevelt/Wabash (CTA station) (where I think it was to begin with), but the edit history at Roosevelt High (CTA station), which is now simply a redirect.

Can someone please reunite the article with its edit history, with Roosevelt/Wabash (CTA station) as the name of the article?

Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Uncle G seems to have straightened it out -- thanks! Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't know whether Anthony Appleyard still patrols Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen, but that's the place for this, not here. This was a relatively simple one. OZODOR did two renames, and then a copy-and-paste to undo them, instead of reverting the moves in the reverse order. Uncle G (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a page I've never heard of -- I'll keep in in mind for the future, thanks. (After 7 years, I'm still discovering new things about this place!) Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mass U1 CSD[edit]

Resolved: Nobody Ent 13:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to request mass deletion (CSD U1) of a set of pages? Specifically my old user name subpages ? Nobody Ent 12:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I can if you would like. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Article: Paul Staines[edit]

I have taken some emergency action at Paul Staines. In view of the complexity of this issuie, including NLT, COI, 3RR, and maybe even SOCK, would one or more uninvolved admins please chime in. See Talk:Paul Staines, the the article history, User talk:Paul.staines, and User talk:Kudpung#Paul Staines. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This at BLPN in 2009 is also relevant - clearly this has been going on for a very long time, despite the subject approaching it in the correct manner before, and semi-protection was used previously but then expired. However, it's unlikely to be related to Ali G's battlecry of "We gotta save Staines!" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Also now at WP:BLPN again with a new entry, but not really adding much. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borce Ilievski[edit]


Can an administrator please delete the article? The person who closed the AfD never bothered doing so. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

She did. It just didn't look like she did on the AfD. I purged the cache on the AfD page and everything seems to be fine now. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment that: The Eastern European mailing list case is supplemented as follows:

The interaction ban placed upon User:Nug and User:Russavia in the Eastern European mailing list case is lifted, effective immediately. The users are reminded of the discretionary sanctions authorized for their area of mutual interest.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Amendment requested for 'The Troubles' Arbitration remedies; input welcome[edit]

Hi all,

Interested editors are invited to review and comment on a request for amendment to the discretionary sanctions remedy (R5) of the The Troubles Arbitration case.

Daniel (talk) 04:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Beee theeere!!! (insert super gravely voice)[edit]

I am attempting to post the origins of the radio and tv call of, "Beee theeere!!!." I personally knew the man who was an active d.j. on am radio who coined this phrase. I believe it to be just as important as Sunday! sunday! sunday!(Also not mentioned on this site yet a phrase he mastered but did not coin)to the children of the 70s and 80s. Ted Henderson was a radio broadcaster throughout the 70s and should be recognized for bringing this term to the american vernacular. I know very little about his history in radio, but, of course, this is where the genius of your site comes into play. somebody else does surely. The problem is, he passed away in march and all the history that surrounds him may be dying off as well. He has two adopted daughters and a son who may stumble upon this and contribute. I feel it is a valuable addition to your site. To hear the man say it would literally bring chills up your spine and giddiness across your face. When he said, "Beee theeere", you knew to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamsagrav (talkcontribs) 10:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Although not a topic for this noticeboard, I'll direct you towards WP:FIRSTARTICLE. Neither your personal knowledge, nor his children's knowledge meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing. If you're able to find sources that generate the appropriate notability, then perhaps an encyclopedia article is possible. Personally, I've here that exact phrase on radio thousands of times across many cities and countries over decades, so attribution to a single person might be a challenge dangerouspanda 10:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Role of admins in Pending Changes[edit]

Hoping for feedback from fellow admins; I think there's a danger here, for WP and for us individually, and I'd like to see us get out in front of this instead of being swept along with the tide. A recent RFA candidate was defeated largely over biteyness issues on one of their 50K edits. I couldn't help but notice that, in slightly different circumstances, the edit they reverted could have been seen as a negative unsourced addition to a BLP article, and in that case, not only would their revert have been okay, it would have been mandatory per BLP. What this has to do with Pending Changes is that the proposal that seems to have the most support at WT:PC2012#Promoting and demoting reviewers puts the burden on individual admins to revoke the new userright if someone is misusing it, which I assume means warning them first. It seems to me that, since different admins draw the line on both BITE and BLP in different places, very active reviewers are going to see their talk pages fill up with warnings from admins that they're in danger of losing the userright because they leaned too far in one direction or the other. The problem is that this type of warning, even if it's accurate, is likely to discourage and push away otherwise productive WPians; we're not just talking about a warning that an edit was wrong, we're talking about a threat to take away a userright that's being handed out like water, which is almost certainly going to be viewed as a slap. Even if we get 100% consensus and we all perform our warning and revoking duties perfectly, my sense is that we'll still get burned ... a lot of raw feelings have been generated over the last five years and more of squabbling over Pending Changes. So: what are some other ways reviewership could be granted and revoked, at least on an experimental basis? - Dank (push to talk) 14:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is any different than rollback, which operates in the same easy-come-easy-go manner. Yes, sometimes users feel that having their rollback removed is a slap in the face, and yes sometimes rollbackers have their rights removed because they have a very different idea than admins of what constitutes "vandalism". But that's...sort of how it works. Rollback-granting operates on the basis of "when you can show you understand how to differentiate a rollback-worthy situation from a non-rollback one, you can have it [back]". Is there any indication that this would be different for Reviewer? Would Reviewer, once removed, not be re-granted once the user can show they've fixed whatever the reason was that they had it removed? I guess I don't really understand whatever the important difference you're trying to highlight here is, Dank. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe so, I mention some things that seem pretty different from rollback to me above, and in my last comment at WT:PC2012#Promoting and demoting reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Can the reviewer right be removed from administrators, many of whom are frankly not competent to judge on matters of content, and all of whom were promoted before this right (in its present form) was introduced? Malleus Fatuorum 18:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
At one point that was possible, but somewhere alomg the line it was decided to bundle it with the admin toolset. I don't know how that decision was made but I would imagine if a consensus to overturn it became apparent it would be technically possible. It would also be possible to "topic ban" admins who had misused the permission evn if there was no technical limitation. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
That'll be a "No" then. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It does seem rather odd that it is a bundled sysop right... clearly that needs to be stopped before things go "live". Also what we should do is set up a community process for receiving/removing the right that is lightweight and involves content editors able to judge when someone needs the right added or removed. Then an admin can flip the button at their behest. --Errant (chat!) 19:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Whether the reviewer right ought to be bundled in the sysop bit is an interesting question, but one that should be raised separately. If we can return to the issue at hand, I agree with fluffernutter that there are some similarities with Rollback regarding how the removal may be viewed, but I think there is a fairly clear community understanding of what is eligible for rollback and what is not. Given an particular use, I think most admins would reach the same conclusion about whether the use was appropriate. In contrast, dank points out the interesting situation that one might identify a nontrivial class of edits where some admins would admonish a user for reverting, and potentially leading to removal of the right, while other admins might insist that the revert was necessary—not simply allowable, but required by policy. It would be most unfortunate if holders of the right were admonished by some if they did the revert, or faulted by others, if they failed to do the revert. (Of course, it is hard to detect that someone failed to revert an edit, so there might be a preference for letting BLP violations go. That would not be good.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

... which lies at the root of the problem. Administrators have no special competence to judge on content issues, therefore they have no special competence to judge who should or shouldn't have this new right, one they all bizarrely have by default. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
t=one? Or was that a typo? Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Malleus here, or at least with what he is asserting about the role of administrators. We're expected to make judgements about editors based on behavior, to settle disputes, and enforce policies. But we've never been given any special status when it comes to judging the quality of content. Even when performing deletions, we delete based on whether or not an article follows the guidelines, not whether or not an article is "good". As you can see at flagged revisions, anyone with that right is intended to judge the "accuracy" of contributions to certain articles, which seems to be a purely editorial call and not something usually under the administrator umbrella. -- Atama 04:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be best to have a formal community procedure for removing the reviewer tag? Let admins grant it out to anyone with a modicum of clue, but require a community !vote to take it away? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
We do expect admins to make judgments about content. Every BLP-based block is fundamentally a judgment about content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No it isn't, it's a judgement about libel. But the point I was making is that administrators have no special competence to judge content; that's something regular editors do far more often than most administrators do. Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
There is far more to BLP than libel, but even if you consider only libel, a decision about whether the content is potentially libelous is still a decision about the content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
In your opinion, but why don't you address my real point, which is that administrators have no special competence to judge content? Or do you believe that they do, and hence are the proper persons to be deciding who should and who should not be allowed this new user right? Malleus Fatuorum 11:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
We ask admins to judge content every day. They judge if edits are vandalism and thus warrant blocks etc. Not sure how that isn't completely judging content. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Any fool can spot obvious vandalism, that's not the issue. And why are you, like WhatamIdoing above you, deliberately ignoring my very specific use of the phrase "special competence"? Or do you really believe that administrators do indeed have some special competency in deciding on content issues? Malleus Fatuorum 11:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I do believe admin need to have competence in judging vandalism. Which is essentially what the reviewer right is. Though some like to think its also about the quality of the content. I am not sure it really goes that far. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Even spotting obvious vandalism is a decision about the content.
I also agree with Djsasso that the point of pending changes isn't to decide whether an edit is ideal, but just to determine whether it's so bad that it shouldn't ever be shown to readers. IMO it's about obvious cases like vandalism and serious BLP violations, not about whether a given change is slightly slanted or possessed of a mediocre source or demonstrating new and interesting categories of grammar errors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Malleus is absolutely right to say that admins have no "special competency" when it comes to content. Admins are trusted by the community to enforce policies and judge consensus; they are no more privileged when it comes to actual editing. This is the main reason for WP:INVOLVED - an admin involved in a content dispute should not use their tools because they have no extra right to make content-based decisions, nor to enforce one editorial view over another. However, I do not think that this is an issue with the reviewer right. Wikipedia:Pending changes says: "The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, or other obviously inappropriate content." According to this (and a similar sentence at Wikipedia:Reviewing), reviewers are there to check that edits are not vandalism, BLP violations, or otherwise inappropriate. This is nothing to do with content, so the fact that admins do not have "special competency" is irrelevant. Reviewing is about vandalism, BLP violations and similar disruption - that is certainly under the remit of adminship. Thus, I see no reason why the reviewing right - essentially another vandal patrolling tool - should not be bundled with the admin bit. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 22:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's rather a naive view, but whatever. The reviewer "right" is of no interest to me anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I seem to be failing at the job of facilitating consensus, so now I'm working on a different problem: when Pending Changes goes live, I'd like to see some actually useful data collection. (We had a trial of Pending Changes a couple of years ago, but only sparse discussion of that trial during the RfC that ended in June.) The main thing I want to look at is editor retention, and I've started a thread at WT:WikiProject Editor Retention#Pending Changes. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Range block needed[edit]

Can someone who knows anything about range blocks take a look at Pico- and figure out the best way to go about this? I assume a range block of some sort is needed in addition to the page protection. Ryan Vesey 15:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the article; range blocks are not ideal, given the number of innocent parties that could potentially be caught up in it. I'll let someone with more skills and agils explain in greater detail. GiantSnowman 15:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Range blocks are one of the most extreme solutions to problems and should always be used as a last resort. JOJ Hutton 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, but it would be good if someone can follow some of these then, User: has made multiple different vandalistic edits., I've made an AIV request for that specific IP. Ryan Vesey 15:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a very heavily used range with a high level of collateral. Also as an FYI, single blocks on this ISP are almost completely ineffective/useless as the IPs reassign very frequently. Elockid (Talk) 15:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone given feedback to the abuse address at the ISP? My experience with other ST subsidiaries is that they are very precise and image-conscious, as a matter of corporate culture. I imagine that they might check their logs to identify repeat offenders, if given the addresses/dates/times. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 15:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Has any communication to any abuse address ever resulted in a successful action? (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Not all the time, but it does happen. (Caveat: My experience involves SOC work in the outside world, rather than reporting onwiki abuse) bobrayner (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Now here's an AfD[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Kimberlin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Concise.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

And hot. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


This user, User:Goredblue123, has made many vandalism edits. Please check all edits of this user. I already restored some of them. --Stryn (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I would call it vandalism, it looks more like a WP:CIR problem combined with an apprent refusal to communicate. (0 user talk edits despite 30+ threads on their talk page) I have gone ahead and blocked them, perhaps this will prompt them to speak up and we can find them a mentor. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Removal of topic ban[edit]

It appears that consensus is to leave the temporary ban in place for the time being, mostly because of the recent block. It can be revisited after some more time has passed with no violations of the restriction. (The alternate proposal does not seem to have generated sufficient traction for implementation either.) 28bytes (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I, User: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) am under a temporary ban from starting new articles until I go through past entries to look for copyrighted material that are too long for fair use. I have been through my archive and reworded passages that were too close to the source material or that were cut and pasted that were too long to be considered fair use. I am hoping the ban can be lifted so I can create new content. Hundreds of entries from the Library of Congress collaboration have not been added because of the ban. I am much more careful so that I do not add copyrighted content. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

  • It is helpful if you link to the original ban discussion (so we can see the original terms), as well as link to some of the articles you fixed, so that a determination can be made with full information. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 15:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose No thank you. You're were back at it very recently, even though you were under the restriction. dangerouspanda 16:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Bans aren't supposed to be permanent punishment but are to be used to curb active bad behaviour. If I have gone through my material as requested, what then is the purpose of the topic ban? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose No thank you. - En Wikipedia has plenty of rubbish content without your cut and copy paste creations of low note subjects - better if you go and improve those that are already created and ignored by editors.Youreallycan 16:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you point out a "low note subject" that I copy and pasted? If a subject doesn't meet GNG it would have been deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
You are the creator of a massive amount of articles, yes? - they mostly will be of low note - that is just a basic fact - all the high/medium notable stuff is already written about, Yes?- you have been copy pasting content to the En Wikipedia project , yes? - so ... Youreallycan 16:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? Terang Boelan, a mid-importance Indonesia article (higher if there were a Cinema of Indonesia project) was just created yesterday. That blanket statement may apply about topics regarding the West, but certainly not worldwide. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
In the process of writing a new piece on Howard Costigan, I just bumped into a former Mayor of Seattle who hasn't been written up. And he's not the only one. The mind boggles. YRC's obnoxious bile-spewing needs to come to an end. I sense that might be in the wind, fortunately. Carrite (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Youreallycan asks: all the high/medium notable stuff is already written about, Yes? I do not know about what constitutes notability to Youreallycan. But in terms of what constitutes notability to me, no. Off the top of my head: redlinked Sakubei Yamamoto (also spellable as Sakubee Yamamoto, Yamamoto Sakubei, Yamamoto Sakubee), recognized by UNESCO (see this and this) but seemingly not by Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you point out at least one "low note subject" that I copy and pasted, instead of using the false logic you use above? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of topic ban. Support someone with more administrative oomph than I have reminding Youreallycan that there's no need to be so sharp about it; a simple "no" would suffice and would not contribute to his already-notable history of unpleasant behavior in discussions. GJC 03:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that YRC's comment was rather harsh, but you don't necessarily need an administrator to tell someone that they really ought to reflect on the potential ramifications of their words before saying them. Nevertheless, he is currently facing the prospect of an arbitration case over repeated comments of this nature. "Warning" him not to be so brusque at this point is not likely to alter his dispositions. Kurtis (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose given that you were blocked less than a month ago for violating the topic ban, removing it would appear to be attempting to achieve this via an alternative route. Black Kite (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per the recent block. GiantSnowman 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose — per recent blocks and extensive block log. Thine Antique Pen (public) 17:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Entirely too soon after coming off a block for violating the ban. You shot yourself in the foot by doing that. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 17:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Black Kite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Given that this was a ban with a specific "ending" condition, if that ending condition has been met, are we now changing the ending condition? A topic ban shouldn't be used in this way IMO. If the issue with the topic is resolved it should be removed. If there are issues that exist outside of that topic, we should be blocking. If we _are_ going to extend a topic ban and _if_ the topic ban's ending condition has been met, we should specify the purpose of the ban so we know when to lift it. Hobit (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
    • So if someone subject to a topic ban ignores it and violates it, it is ok then? Particularly since they have been blocked twice in the last month, including for violating the topic ban? When someone disregards the terms of their sanction, it isn't a good place to complain about the completion of the said terms. It is understood that if you violate the terms of a sanction, those sanctions may be extended until a time the community feels comfortable removing them. Maybe next week, or next month, but not today. Violating the terms is yet another form of disruption, and since the purpose of any sanction is to prevent disruption, extending the ban for a while longer seems consistent with policy. Had he not violated the ban to begin with, this entire conversation would be moot, so be sure and point the finger in the proper direction. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 17:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Not saying it's okay. I'm saying a topic ban shouldn't be used as punishment. Does it really make sense to extend a topic ban because the topic ban was violated? "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia." I'm not seeing any evidence that extending this ban will be in service of that. But consensus is clearly toward continuing the ban thus far. Eh, if nothing else this will make a really good RfA question about how to appropriately use blocks and topic bans. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of the topic ban is to prevent the problematic behavior and give the user a chance to demonstrate that they can contribute without engaging in the banned behavior. If they instead demonstrate that they cannot it serves a legitimate preventative purpose to uphold and extend the ban. 99% of users are not under any type of editing restriction, it is not that hard to avoid. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The relevant CCI case is here - it does not appear to be anywhere near cleared. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not cleared. I spent a fair amount of time working on it, and was working fairly well with the OP (at least I thought so), but we got bogged down on length_of_quote_in_reference_issues, which haven't yet been resolved, so I moved on to other tasks. I still hope to revisit the topic, if only because RAN is a prolific contributor, and I'd like to see him contributing again.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
CCI brought it upon themselves to some extent with an overbroad investigation. In my opinion, RAN needs to forever STOP glossing quoted paragraphs in footnotes. Footnote just the author, title, publication info, and page number — do NOT recreate the referenced paragraph or paragraphs. It's unnecessary, it bogs down the footnotes, and it pisses off the copyright sticklers, all three. Carrite (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
How would you restrict the investigation? The general rule is that if enough problems are found, everything must be checked. That's a lot in the case of RAN, but "overbroad" implies you think there is a way to limit it in some way. I'd be happy to find a way to limit the review, what did you have in mind?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, I'm not certain I agree with you here. A topic ban should be there to prevent problems within the topic. *If* we believe he's not going to recreate the same problems (and has fixed the old ones) I don't think a topic ban makes sense--it's not preventing anything that I can see. That said, it sounds as if there is still a lot of clearing to do so the point is moot. I'd encourage RAN to work with Sphilbrick and others to help get that cleared... Hobit (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I think RAN is an outstanding content creator. I think the copyright concerns around him were either overblown, greatly overblown, or much ado about nothing given the tens of thousands of edits he has made over the years. Close paraphrase is gonna happen from time to time when one looks for it with a microscope. The big majority of his created articles were clean, and when he says he's going to be very serious about following copyright rules, I believe we can take him at his word. This topic ban (article creation) needs to be ended for the betterment of the project. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Discussion unarchived for formal closure. Cunard (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternate proposal[edit]

Assuming that the concern is whether RAN can be trusted not to violate copyright with his new content creations, rather than the problem being some desire to punish the editor for past transgressions, I propose a six month trial period during which RAN shall be limited to not more than FIVE (5) new article starts per month (exclusive of redirects). This small number of starts may therefore be closely monitored for potential copyvio issues, with a block or restoration of the full ban forthcoming for any violation. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I think there are two issues. #1 He violated the topic ban recently and there seems to be a strong sense that asking to have the ban removed/reduced soon after having violated it isn't going to fly. #2 There do seem to be a few articles that haven't been fixed that have had copyright problems identified. RAN should try to tackle those first. I'd say fix the handful of articles that have identified and unfixed problems, work well with those who are identifying problems and come back in a month or so. I just don't see the community supporting this right now given the above discussion. Hobit (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I concur. I'm open minded, but fix the existing problems and allow a little time since his last violation of the terms before asking. No matter how prolific an editor is, we all have to abide by copyright policy. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 23:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I have to agree. Whether or not there was a recent violation I will leave to others to discern, but it appears he still has much work to finish fixing past violations. Copyright is just too serious to let go until the community is shown that he has taken enough action to fix these problems and show a real understanding of paraphrasing and copyright. I feel the topic ban should stand for now and perhaps this proposal for a trial period is a good idea when consensus is reached to end the snactions.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Education Program extension RfC[edit]

I've just opened up a request for comment on whether to enable the Education Program extension for managing and monitoring Wikipedia educational assignments. Note that possible configuration options include having admins control access to the main features of the extension, such as creating new courses.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at a deleted article may help[edit]

Resolved: Another satisfied AN customer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IICCRD it has been suggested that the article in question may be substantially similar to Iiccrd which was speedily deleted. If someone with admin rights could have a look it may inform the discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The content of IICCRD is significantly different than the content of Iiccrd, which was a bare bones regurgitation if the organization's goals. No comment on the suitability of the current article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
No prob. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

A proposal to have two entirely different classes of editors[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere: this proposal seems poorly conceived, but it is also innapropriate for this board as it has nothing to do with site administration. WP:VPR or WP:VPI, which is for undeveloped speculative ideas like this, would be a better place if you believe this idea has merit.There is also the copy editor's group which already exists. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia should have two entirely separate classes of editors. The first group could be called the Factual Editors' Group. This group would consist of people who wish to correct all manner of factual mistakes. The second group, an entirely separate group, would consist of people who, while they might be concerned about factual mistakes and might post as members of the first group, would primarily be concerned about the quality of the English in the English-language Wikipedia. They could be called the Grammatical Editors' Group. It is painful to say it, but the quality of English used is, in many cases, absolutely atrocious. Here is one example, excerpted from the entry on Arab, followed by my comments: The early Arabs were the tribes of Northern Arabia speaking proto Arabic dialects. Although since early days other people became Arabs through an Arabization process that could mean intermarriage with Arabs, adopting the Arabic language and culture, or both. For example, the Ghassanids and the Lakhmids which originated from Southern Semitic speaking Yemen made a major contribution in the creation of the Arabic language. The same process happened all over the Arab world after the spread of Islam by the mixing of Arabs with several other peoples. The Arab cultures went through a mixing process. Therefore every Arab country has cultural specificities which constitute a cultural mix which also originate in local novelties achieved after the arabization took place. However, all Arab countries do also share a common culture in most Aspects: Arts (music, literature, poetry, calligraphy...), Cultural products (Handicrafts, carpets, henne, bronze carving...), Social behaviour and relations (Hospitality, codes of conduct among friends and family...), Customs and superstitions, Some dishes (Shorba, Mloukhia), Traditional clothing, Architecture.. -0- proto Arabic needs a hyphen. The second sentence is terrible English; the sentence is incomplete. The third sentence needs a who between Yemen and made. The sixth sentence says, inter alia, ... local novelties. This, too, is bad English. The word novelties simply does not apply to this sentence and should not be used, although I confess that I do not know which word should be substituted. arabization needs a capital. In the next sentence, Aspects does not need a capital ... Some [dishes] does not require a capital This is only a tiny sample of the English used -- sentences with no verbs, sentences that are incomplete, misspellings, etc. There should be different policies and rules for members of the Grammatical editors group, although I do not presume to know what they should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think fixing grammar and spelling requires a specific user-right? "Anyone can edit" applies to everyone, whatever they choose to do. Some write stuff, some do the under-the-hood infrastructure stuff, some make minor edits cleaning up other people's stuff - and most people do a mix of all three. Mogism (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Need a technical history merge of two articles[edit]

Done by Reaper Eternal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two articles need a technical history merge

Obviously both the same agency This should have been "merged" a long time ago, but better late than never.--JOJ Hutton 14:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Fixed by TheDJ. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could anybody fix the error in the protected Template:Lang-crh? (The word "language" needs to be deleted) --glossologist (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Done —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New watchlist feature[edit]

Hey all. So, we had an AFT5 deployment earlier, and one of the new features allows you to see feedback from articles you're watchlisting, via a blue link at the top of the watchlist. Hope people find this helpful; if you have any problems, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, I was really hoping there would be something like this when I first heard of AFT5. --PresN 02:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Glad to be of help :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Not supported on the iPhone: "Sorry, your browser is not supported by this prototype. To see this page, please use a different browser." Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It worked for me on my iPad with a user agent switcher, so it doesn't appear to be a technical capability issue. Instaurare (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Great idea, just a shame 95% of the feedback is trolling from IPs - my two favourite comments are the simple "gay" and "no." GiantSnowman 09:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This is absolutely great, and I found some useful stuff. Is there any way to show only unresolved feedback? I marked a dozen comments as resolved, but can not get rid of them.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree; we have all sorts of filters, but not that one. Lectonar (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I would like to see a feedback queue option on the right side, something like "Add to queue". For one example of what I'm talking about, on my watchlist I see feedback from IPs requesting images. It would be helpful to add that feedback to a queue that feeds into a specific "photo requested" queue monitored by a WikiProject, patroller, or bot, that then marks the article talk page for a photo and links to the feedback, or takes it one step further and sends out a request to users who help add requested images. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow! This feature is awesome! I am getting real feedback from real people with real needs. I can actually trace shifts in tone to particular efforts, which is deeply motivating. Also this gives me quite a bit of perspective into the relative importance of the different articles in my watch list. Thanks! I love it! →Yaniv256 talk contribs 10:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I notice about half of the feedbacks on my watchlist are fairly useless, but I suppose that isn't such a bad ratio. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 12:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Justin Bieber is on my watchlist -- wanna bet on my percentage of "useless comments"? Try 98% or so. Collect (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I was just coming to comment about the exact same article. This feature is mostly useless unless we can choose to remove pages from it. I don't want to remove a vandalism magnet from my watchlist, but my feedback page is dominated by a couple of articles full of feedback that really has nothing to do with anything. --OnoremDil 14:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • 👍 Like —  an IP gave a feedback to one of my articles I am both watching and working on not sure if its trolling since the IP stated "less lies" :/ I did reply though =) Best, Jonatalk to me 14:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

About 85% of the feedback I've seen has been utterly useless, much it obvious nonsense such as "asdasdasd", or "piv gair ". So who is allowed to edit/delete this feedback? Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe all rollbackers have that access. Ryan Vesey 16:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It's described at Wikipedia:Article Feedback/Help/Monitors. Apparently, feedback "monitors" are admins, rollbackers and "reviewers". Feedback posts cannot be modified, but they can be hidden (i.e. essentially revdeleted). Somebody has been drafting a guideline about how that feature should be used, but that's evidently nowhere near established yet. Fut.Perf. 16:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I see. Then like pending changes I will be ignoring this new feature. Malleus Fatuorum 17:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems unlikely (and actually possibly detrimental to the project) that admins, rollbackers and reviewers are going to spend a lot of time editing this stuff, when they (and many, many rank-and-file editors) pretty much have their hands full protecting the encycylopedia from vandalism and improving its articles. Was it really necessary to create an entirely new class of text that needs to be looked after, especially considering even the most enthusiastic folks here rank 85-90% of it as worthless? Unlike the enthusiasts, I saw nothing that was particularly helpful, and nothing at all that couldn't have been dealt with via a comment on the article's talk page. Like WikiLove, I see this as an utter waste of time and energy, and, perhaps, an indication that the Foundation's focus is profoundly misplaced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Why exactly would we need to look after it? This is like a public dumpster. Sometimes people use it to donate useful stuff instead of going to the trouble of handing it over to charity, but what is the point of trying to clean it up? It's a dumpster! Nobody reads it unless he or she enjoys looking for the useful stuff that people donate next to the dumpster. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 04:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
That's the problem. This feature has added a "Graffiti wall" to every article on Wikipedia, and we the community don't dare just ignore it. At best this will merely yield a whole pile of meaningless inanities and the feature will merely be a distracting embarrassment. But if we don't divert enough volunteers from improving Wikipedia to thoroughly patrolling this then we risk a major incident, and more importantly we will be enabling a whole bunch of cyber bullying incidents of the High school girl named as sex-worker on her school's Wikipedia page variety. ϢereSpielChequers 12:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I will say that while despite 90% of the feedback I see from my watched articles, the rest is potentially helpful and this is a great way for readers to get involved without having to become "editors" (even if it was as simple as editing a talk page). --MASEM (t) 16:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Same here. Lots of obvious junk, but the occasional useful suggestion in between. Only a few concrete, actionable suggestions, but also some general indications of what direction an article should be developed in, which, even if vague, might give an editor a useful idea in some cases. Fut.Perf. 16:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
My concern is that after reading it, the suggestion will sometime be forgotten. Can we somehow transclude or substitute featured comments onto the talk page? Ryan Vesey 16:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure, depending on the article 50%-99% of this is crap. But that it good! Just read it the other way, 1%-50% are valuable comments. Notice 0% is not in the range. Ryan's idea is a great idea which deserves to be properly discussed. We need to be able to pull what we see as useful into the talk page. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 20:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm seeing a lot of this kind of thing: "some more info HARDCORE DAVID GET OFF MY KEY BOARD JEESE" - not very helpful to be honest. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Article feedback is such a joy to behold. And that's from just the last 30 minutes. Looking at feedback from my watchlist, I find the omnipresent "tits", alongside such wonders as "leave your job", "to learn more", "meep meep meep meep MEEP", and the almost unbeatable "I don't know, it's your problems to think about it!!!". To go to this from poring over what Nataliia L' vovna Zhukovskaia had to say about Tsagan Ebugen is quite a shock to the system. Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I've been gently suggesting for a while that the current approach is deeply flawed, lacks a proper specification/aim and is not ready for production. But that seems to be falling on deaf ears; I notice that today it has been noted this is expected to be rolled out to 100% of articles in the not very distant future. Given that the tool still requires significant development I don't see how that can even be on the roadmap yet! --Errant (chat!) 19:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I do note that if you sort by relevance, the results are generally a lot more helpful. I do wonder if here's a case where an argressive spam filter could be used to hide (not eliminate) results, such as those under a set character limit, excess repeated characters/words, cussing, etc, hiding those inputs by default but still potentially available.
    Also, but this becomes more wish-list-y, it would be nice if there was a way to put perennial feedback and replies to the feedback users. For example, Grand Theft Auto IV is on my watchlist, and there's already like 3 calls for us to list all the cars in the game. I'd love to be able to have a box that, before readers leave feedback, can read and understand that we're not a strategy wiki and won't do this, and invite their participation further on the talk page if they have questions.
    I think does work but needs tuning. I don't want to see it go away just because 90% of it may be crap, because that 10% is actually pretty valuable. --MASEM (t) 20:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    It is rather silly that there isn't much in the way of an edit filter on these results. This is *potentially* a useful idea, but separating the wheat from the chaff looks to be difficult enough to make the system unuseful. Resolute 19:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I am getting something very similar, but am thinking it might not be such a bad idea to comply. On the democracy article there are many feedbacks that say that it would be nice to have a list of all the democratic countries in the world. Now, it's just one click away on the Democracy index article, but if so many people can't find it, why not put in a box with all the flags and names of the democratic countries. I started putting it together in my sandbox and I must say that it is kind of neat, in a non-academic sort of way. I think putting color into the article makes a lot of difference and that sort of thing does that job quite well. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 05:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Could I get a off-hand straw-poll if you guys think we should respond to requests like that? →Yaniv256 talk contribs 06:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it should be required or even expected, but it does sound like some good has come from it, and that is encouraging. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • yawn. should be opt-in; to opt-out:
 display: none;

Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

    • I don't need a coded way to ignore it. It's not a large or distracting link. I don't need to opt-out from it. It just really doesn't seem like a very useful tool...kind of like the feedback tool it started from. Point people to the talk page. Mirror the responses to the talk page with some ability to check them off. Something has to be better than watching the page, the talk page, and the almost entirely useless feedback from this. I looked at this because this discussion was ongoing and actually, I think, improved an article. This is not something I'll look at regularly because the feedback is so overwhelming and stupid. --OnoremDil 05:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
a singing piece of poop - Justin Beiber
somone cool - Justin Beiber
Who are Juatin Biebers Siblings? - Justin Beiber
about his family - Justin Beiber
JUSTIN IS UGLY - Justin Beiber
lisa marie's first mtv video - Lisa Marie Presley
justin bieber ishot - Justin Beiber
talk more about his "haters" and his relationship with Selena Gomez - Justin Beiber
Great content. Contained everything I was looking for. GO WIKI!!!!!!! - Justin Beiber
why toyota move manufacturing to europe' - Toyota
Those are the last 10 'feedback' items for me with a watchlist of about 2500 articles. This is not very useful. --OnoremDil 06:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
How exciting. New feedback from a minute ago.
i love you - Justin Beiber
What exactly is the point of this feature instead of pointing users to the talk page? All it does is add another place for discussion. --OnoremDil 06:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the Toyota question kind of usefull? Does the article have something on that? →Yaniv256 talk contribs 06:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that none of the feedback is useful. But this isn't a 'feature' when only 1 of 11 comments is useful...and that's assuming that the Toyota answer isn't in the article. I don't know if it is. I'm watching for vandalism on that article, not content...and I'm not going to read through the entire thing now looking for the answer. --OnoremDil 06:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Now I get why you would carry a crap magnet like Justin Beiber. That must be one hell of a vandal honey pot! That would also suggest that this feature should be absolutely worthless to you. I am surprised you were not more negative about it. It is not designed to support your line of work, and should not be expected to be able to perform well under such conditions. If you are interested in assessing it I would suggest you copy paste your raw watch list to a text file, pick 10 articles which you have content interest in, and then take another look. One more thing: no BLP. I don't think this feature should be on BLP articles. That's just not right. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 07:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

How is this a new watchlist feature? My own watchlist seems unchanged. Searching within it for the string "feedback" brings nothing. However I learn from the above that any article can have feedback. I guess that the article on Obama will have feedback. Sure enough, Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Barack_Obama does. At least 80% of this can be summarized as Needs moar truthiness! and nothing that I notice in the remainder is of actual use. I tentatively infer that this new "feature" is something I can safely ignore but yet a Good Thing: adding worthless comments (see the plentiful examples above) harmlessly absorbs the time and energy of me-toos and nincompoops. However, isn't there a danger that somebody will write an intelligent comment that I'll miss, but that I'd have read and benefitted from if only it had instead been in the relevant talk page? -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Just chipping in that my feedback is also pretty much entirely useless. There's one "I liked it"; some gibberish as detailed above. The good faith comments constitute a significant proportion but they consist of requests for WP:HOWTO information (on currencies and programming) and statements that actually they don't want a detailed article, just a list of "famous" examples. Depressingly crap tool, tbh. bridies (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • There's no need to paraphrase. bar examination literally needs "more cheese" and list of Newspeak words needs "MORE BATMAN". Of course more porn is a staple request, because sometimes one is just simply "unable to masturbate to this article", but sometimes an article needs "more cowbell". The mind boggles as to what the writer of Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Rocky (film series)/267194 is looking for more of.

    It's Special:ArticleFeedbackv5Watchlist that's the new watchlist feature.

    You can of course view the fact that you won't be watching the article feedback for comments to be a form of negative feedback that will discourage use of the feedback tool for serious purposes. People who post useful comments in amongst the deluge of one-word incoherences, requests for porn, requests for telephone numbers (example), people just saying "poo", and personal revelations (such as this one) will find them ignored, and will learn to use the talk page. Think of it as evolution in action. ☺

    The downside to your absence is that the mean number of feedback items for the rest of us to deal with goes up. Close to 230,000 feedback items divided by approximately 7,000 administrator and reviewer accounts means 30 or so items for each and every administrator reading this noticeboard to review for advertisements, BLP violations, and abuse, already. And since we administrators are (wrongly) advertised as the "go to" people for just about everything, we can both predict where all the "please delete this feedback item right now" requests will end up.

    Uncle G (talk) 11:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

    • A few hours after I wrote that, "more cheese" and "i was unable to masturbate to this article" were both automatically marked as helpful by the article feedback tool. Uncle G (talk) 05:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Yep, this is a known bug; it's attributing anonymous actions to the tool. We've got a fix and will be deploying it on Thursday. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Surely we should consider having User:ClueBot NG or some similar bot go through this first and hopefully filter out most of the crap? Is there an API interface for this? T. Canens (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I have only just got around to looking at this. I fear it it is just opening up a section of wikipedia for all the kind of crap that ones gets on facebook and the like. I thought we wanted to avoid that. I think this is a bad idea.
  • The quality of the comments being left on the articles I have watchlisted is really, really low (and a surprising number of readers seem to think that the articles are the official website of the various topics...). That said, there does also seem to have been an increase in the number of IPs making good contributions to articles on my watchlist, which I suspect is linked. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that feedback quality is mostly low, but the nature of the feedback will tend to be influenced by the nature of the article. My watchlist includes a lot of articles with potential for neutrality problems; here, feedback often looks like "This article should show the TRUTH which is being suppressed by the CIA / Big Pharma / Global Media / UN". With goods & services that might be bought by consumers, common feedback includes "Why did you remove my website on the HOTTEST DEALS?" and "Where is the nearest branch?". However, there is some useful feedback. On less glamorous articles, there are often comments that dry prose should be supplemented with a photo / diagram / graph &c... bobrayner (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The feedback feature seems to me to be a well-meaning but very much undercooked and poorly thought out idea. Its current format ignores the basic reality that while a huge number of people read WP articles, only a small number of people are actually active WP editors. Given that a substantial majority of feedback consists of crap that would normally be considered vandalism, we have to ask ourselves: do we really want WP to become essentially a permanent webhost for such huge amount of crap and vandalism? If the answer is "no", whose job is it exactly to clean up this crap and remove it from being easily accessible? Surely, we can't realistically expect the small number of active WP editors to take on such a large extra task on top of what they are doing already. When a "regular" vandalism edit is reverted (without being revdel-ed or oversighted), it does remain in page history, but finding it there requires some degree of knowledge and skill. With viewing feedback, it is just two easy clicks away. Also, while I don't like using WP:BLP as a club, there are actual serious BLP issues involved in feedback. For example, over the last few days I looked through feedback for Newt Gingrich, and there were definitely a number of comments there that were borderline libelous and slanderous. Even in its current limited experimental stage, feedback already contains quite a number of such comments which would never be allowed to sit that long in mainspace or projectspace (such as talk pages of the articles affected). Expanding the scope of the feedback feature to more articles would multiply this problem and eventually WMF will face legal flak and possible legal threats or even lawsuits because of it. It seems to me both unrealistic and unfair dumping such significant extra workload as cleaning up feedback on the already shrinking cohort of regular WP editors. Nsk92 (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I can't agree with you about undercooked, but yes it is poorly thought out and I'd add an inevitable traincrash. But overcooked is probably a more accurate description. Unfortunately after making several attempts in the last year or more to kill AFT I've come to the conclusion that nothing short of an RFC by the community will suffice. We've even had research showing that a call to action would outperform AFT at the thing it is supposed to do - getting readers to interact with us. Tellingly the cost to the existing community of handling the extra crap is completely disregarded in the WMF evaluation of the project. I wouldn't resent AFT so much if the equation was along the lines of "for every hour of volunteer time needed to patrol the extra crap we get 2 hours of extra useful volunteer time from our readers". But the stats haven't been done that way, and if they were I hold out little hope that it would be a net positive. ϢereSpielChequers 16:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I tend to concur; the tool has a "planned by committee" feel for it. What worries me is that whilst an OK idea it is still far from production ready - but they are talking about rolling it out 100% by the end of this year. The way it has set up means the feedback is of a mostly low quality and is being fed into a black hole where editors are unlikely to see it with no way to respond to the person giving feedback. I tend to agree - a banner that appeared at the bottom of the page as you scrolled down saying "You can edit!" would be more effective in editor recruitment :) --Errant (chat!) 10:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I beg to differ on the argument that wiki-markup is too steep a wall to ask our readers to climb. Particularly considering that they know very well that behind that wall they will be required to face the infamous man-eating wiki-culture, with its five wiki-hands yielding head-bashing Pillars of scorn.→Yaniv256 wind roads 20:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm a bit confused as to what you are replying to there - has anyone mentioned barriers to entry? FWIW I do disagree; Wiki-markup is voodoo to many people - even editors - and the idea that readers know anything about our community here behind the scenes is dispelled in about 30 seconds at an outreach/editathon session :) --Errant (chat!) 20:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
            • My apology for being vague. I was referring to what I thought was a suggestion that a banner at the article bottom would be a more effective way of inviting our readers to express their needs. By wiki-markup I meant just what you see when you try to edit, of which one prominent example of a high barrier to entry is the proper way of citing sources. →Yaniv256 wind roads 20:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Ah, this feedback feature is very interesting. I've read through a few hundred feedback comments and I think I've found it useful precisely once, during our coverage of the 2012 Summer Olympics. Looking over the recent stuff, I see that Barack Obama is a Muslim, Wikipedia is run by liberals, Paul Ryan once worshipped a female Russian atheist, WP:COMMONNAME does not exist (and saying that it does probably means you're part of the Illuminati), we have a moral obligation to be providing links to copyright-violating torrent sites... and also, masturbation!

    I'm too lazy to opt out of this now, but if it disappears, along with the new feedback tool, I will be very happy. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - I agree with Beyond My Ken's stated comments above. Most of what I have seen is useless dribble. Kierzek (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I haven't read feedback coming from the tool, but I submitted my own a few times and I find the instructions so patronizing and offensive that I consider the thing worthless. It really does make me want to submit sarcastic trolling like the stuff quoted above, though I haven't actually done that since I have better things to do. (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Excellent, I have about a thousand medical articles on my watchlist, and about three quarters of the feedback is good faith, while more than a third is useful. If you don't like it, don't use it. --Anthonyhcole (talk).
    • But in medical articles you still get requests for more porn, requests for telephone numbers, more requests for telephone numbers, even more requests for telephone numbers, and people who have contracted absence of spacebar just like everyone else. I only looked at 8 medical articles to obtain those. I'm sure that I'd find people just saying "poo" if I looked at a thousand. Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I think I've modified the feedback filters enough to counteract much of the constant outright vandalism (e.g. "porn" and "poop"). Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
        • People know that they can still ask for "pitchers" and tell you to "fck off" because "your gay" (all posted within the past hour). I can see another Reaper Eternal's Grand Unified Filter Out Everything appearing at this rate. Don't forget to answer this request for a telephone number, by the way. And this one. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
          • There's a limit to what can be filtered with the abusefilter extension—I am basically just disallowing posts with phrases commonly used by vandals. The rest is going to have to be filtered through by hand, which unfortunately means that when the WMF deploys this to every article, the quantity of generally useless posts will increase tenfold. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
            • My feeling is that since the WMF instituted this feature over the objections of the community, and has done a fairly poor job of implementing it, and since it's the WMF that's in danger of being sued over some piece of trash buried in the feedback, the WMF ought to police it.

              We didn't ask for this, and we don't appear to think it's worthwhile, so I feel no compunction to spend my volunteer hours cleaning it up. In fact, what I plan to do is to ignore it altogether, which I suspect the vast majority of admins and experienced users will end up doing as well. When we spend time cleaning and protecting articles, it's because we want to preserve the value they have to the encyclopedia. I don't see this "feature" as having anything but the most peripheral value, certainly nothing approaching the amount of time necessary to keep it cleaned.

              Get rid of it, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

            • You could probably have a filter on feedback that contains only punctuation marks, but you're never going to filter out the naughty words without Reaper Eternal's Grand Unified Filter Out Everything. People know how to write "ana lsex", and as Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Fluid ounce/281519 shows there are ways to ask for more porn without using the words "more" and "porn". Readers can be, will be, and are being inventive in their feedback requests for porn, 'phone numbers, and poo. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
              • A filter on feedback with no punctuation would see a lot of action. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that once we get bots to filter out most of the obvious junk, the usability of this feature should improve. My results are interesting. The sports articles I follow get few comments, but I also watchlist Muhammad. It would be nice to un-watchlist that article in AFT, but not in Wikipedia. Especially since the number of "hide pictures please" and "OMG LIEZ" comments that one article gets singlehandedly overwhelms the other 1000 articles I follow. Resolute 20:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

A second time: At the very top of this thread, we're told: one of the new features allows you to see feedback from articles you're watchlisting, via a blue link at the top of the watchlist. There is no blue (or other) link at the top of my watchlist that seems to be relevant in any way. Additionally, the string "feedback" doesn't appear anywhere in my watchlist. So how am I supposed to know that there is feedback? ¶ Oh, I can guess that Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/ARTICLE brings me feedback on ARTICLE, and above I should have guessed that feedback on the Obama article would overrepresent the crawled-out-from-under-rocks demographic, but Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/London for example tells me that feedback hasn't been turned on. Which, to judge from Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/New York, is no loss whatever. New York -- an article whose third sentence reads This article is about the U.S. state -- has six comments:

  1. Telephone Number
    • Of what?
  2. Well i think you should put more on the agricultural status of NY
    • Ah, a comment that's at least intelligible. It's pretty easy to follow the links that lead here. If you know roughly how to use Wikipedia. And if you don't, you might as well instead comment I don't know how to use Wikipedia.
  3. new york
    • Yes, good, well done.
  4. ho is the major of new york
    • Even I know that states don't have mayors (though they assuredly have hos). Go to New York City, and there Ctrl-F-mayor or Cmnd-F-mayor
  5. why is new york called the big apple
    • New York State is not called the big apple. But WP's best guess at answering the intended question is as elusive as Big Apple.

-- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • If we get someone to write a filter that disallows the letter "p", that'll sort out "porn", "poo", "phone number" and "pictures of Muhammad" in one fell swoop. Not sure why no-one's thought of that yet. Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to interrupt the festival of back-slapping over having rediscovered Sturgeon's Law, but I actually rather like it, or at least certain aspects of it. My view here is colored by the fact that my watchlist has a fair number of small, low-traffic articles; while I do watch a few "controversial" things like some Crusade-related articles, I'm not looking at anything related to modern popular culture. It's already generated one article improvement I probably wouldn't have thought of on my own. I can think of several straightforward changes to improve the signal-to-noise ratio:

  1. Drop the idea of universal coverage. Even if it does generate a few excellent suggestions on improving, say, Barack Obama, we don't have enough eyeballs to pick them out of the stream of partisan wrangling. Let editors opt into it on an article-by-article basis with a template.
  2. Flush it regularly. Posts that haven't been featured in a certain amount of time are probably too marginal to save. Get rid of them. Even better, transclude the old featured posts onto the talk page.

I confess that I'm a little tender towards the tool because I feel it's supported a philosophical point I made some time ago, in the wake of TCO's controversial report on FAs: number of page hits is a very poor metric for encyclopedic merit, because we don't know if the hit came from someone using us as an encyclopedia. It's clear from looking over the feedback that a lot of our readers are—to be blunt—too stupid to know the difference between a Wikipedia page and an official home page. We can't give them what they're asking for within the bounds of WP:NOT, and using their page hits to drive our priorities is a first-class mistake. Choess (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I like both these ideas :). As an interim measure we've got a feature that'll turn the tool off, which should be deployed on Monday or Tuesday (just another section on Special:Protect that allows you to turn off the tool). Hopefully that will solve the problem on those pages where noise comes outstrips signal. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Do you mean "turn off" per article? And would that be an admin thing only, or the admin, rollbacker, reviewer groups? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

View feedback link on article pages[edit]

(Moved from bottom of page. There was no need for a new section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC))

Are you guys crazy? Take it down now! →Yaniv256 wind roads 18:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Two questions:
  1. Why?
  2. Why did you start this new section rather than commenting in the open one a few sections up? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Because I am fine with this feature as long as the feedback is kept well hidden from readers. Otherwise, I do have to go and clean it up, which makes the feedback a very bad feature indeed. I just noticed this link, was it there for a long time? Feel free to close this discussion or move it to be a sub discussion of the previous one if you think that is better discussed in that context. →Yaniv256 wind roads 19:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
In particular, the new link at the top of the talk page seems quite sufficient to me. But even for that I would hope that some template would be provided to allow us to hide it, say at the bottom instead of the top. →Yaniv256 wind roads 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It requires no more cleaning up than the same contents would prompt on the article's talk page, and t is harder for the readers to find these comments compared to talk page comments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I was referring to a new link on the toolbox that allows a reader to see other readers feedback. It was put there today, I think, and I don't remember that something like that going to happen was mentioned before. Are we on the same page now? One click and they see all the junk, yes? →Yaniv256 wind roads 04:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, I think the issue is that those types of comments don't occur on talk pages very often in practice. If it starts happening too often on a particular page, that page gets protected. But with this feedback stuff, it apparently does happen all the time, on vaster swaths of pages than have this problem through regular editing. So, arguably, something should be done. (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure; see my last comment in the section above :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

User page and user talk page moved to template space[edit]

History merge done
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It looks like Template:Metro series was originally created by a new user from their user page and then both the template design and the user talk page were accidentally page-moved to template space [2]. An IP then copied and paste previous warnings from the now-template talk page back to the user talk page [3]. Is there anything that needs to be done to preserve accurate histories or something? -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

What? I did that because I dont know another way to create an article template. There is nothing wrong with the template. It is a template showing the metro series not my talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaCyanide666 (talkcontribs) 21:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

  • The template is fine, as is the history because it was the only thing the user had used it for. The problem is at what is now the template talk page, which needs to be history merged with the user's talkpage. Which I'll do in the next few minutes. Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


This will close at the scheduled time like almost all other XFDs. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can an admin close Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:GA_banner Thanks! ObtundTalk 06:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That discussion has run for less than four days. Is there any particular reason to cut short the normal seven-day debate? JohnCD (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
It is a unanimous keep. ObtundTalk 16:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
At the moment. We give these things a week to run unless there's a good reason; a lot of editors are only active at the weekend. What's your hurry, anyway? It's barely used anywhereMogism (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CBS Records[edit]

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere: Clearly this is a content dispute. Seek WP:DR and/or Wp:PP as needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

For the article CBS Records, should the article only contain information on the current business entity that was created in 2006, or should it contain information on both business entities and include the division of CBS that existed under that name from 1962 to 1988? All the links coming into the article are for the the pre 1988 entity. User:Steelbeard1 insists that only 2006 information is to be at the article despite reliable sources showing a business entity of the same name from 1962 to 1988. He deletes all changes to the article back to his preferred version despite the use of reliable sources showing CBS Records existing prior to 2006 and despite all the incoming links being to the first business entity. He has now reverted to his version three times and is now removing links in other articles that point to "CBS Records", there are several hundred incoming links for the pre 1988 business entity. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Snow close request[edit]

Anyone interested in snow closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:StillStanding-247/RfC? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


Dear administrator,

My article "Ahmet Yalçınkaya" is copied by a website calling itself "pulp-pedia" at the address . It is really annoying as they directly copied the article from Wikipedia and added profanities to it. Is not there any way to block them or at least to prevent them do this?

It is very important for my poet friend Ahmet Yalcinkaya and for me. I am the editor of the original article after his name. We need urgent help. Thank you.

A. Edip Yazar Editor of the article "Ahmet Yalçınkaya" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipyazar2 (talkcontribs) 16:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The licence Wikipedia uses allows content to be reused for any purpose, provided the source is attributed and any derivative work (such as this one) is licenced under the same terms. It's just childish vandalism and the content has obviously been copied automatically, I suggest you ignore it. Hut 8.5 16:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That has got to the lamest Wikipdia parody I have ever seen. I agree, ignore it. I'm sure everyone else will. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I commented on this website a while back and my larger concern is why Wikipedia allows the trademarked puzzle globe to be defaced which is not part of the license agreement. Ignoring it is a viable option but action is in my opinion the better choice. 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 17:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
You've got a point there about the logo but there is nothing any en.wp admin can do about it. This is a matter for the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. This guy is probably a good contact for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
This was raised on Geoff's enwiki talk page last month, see User talk:Geoffbrigham#Pulp-p