Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

WP:UAA[edit]

The seriousness of the backlog has been taken care of and it is back to acceptably silly levels. :) ·Salvidrim!·  00:28, 17 April 2013 (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.

WP:UAA is seriously backlogged, haven't seen it this bad in awhile. We'll have the full story... at 11! 20:26, 14 April 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JoshBlitz[edit]

Any crats around to put this RfA out of its impending misery? (I'm filing this in duplicate pursuant to Wikipedia:BUREAUCRACY.) Drmies (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the MfD. Invalidating someone's candidacy, however misguided it is, by deleting it is not something we should be advocating. I will be leaving a message with JoshBlitz to let him know what's going on, but I don't have the time for that right now. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. It did seem to me that MfD was not the proper way to go. Drmies (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree. If we don't think someone should be running for admin, we don't address it by just deleting their nomination page - at least not without discussing it with the candidate first. A message on the user talk page seems like the way to go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) and I had to re-close it, after the nominator reverted Deskana's close. Syrthiss (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Ha, that's part of the editor's MO--they did that at AfC as well, 2 minutes after I declined their submission. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I was referring to Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · count) (the one who nominated it for mfd), not JoshBlitz (talk · contribs · count). Syrthiss (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Gotcha--the nominator of the MfD, not the nominator of the RfA. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I left a message on Josh's talk page; I realize there are also some problems with AFC here, and there may be some issues that are going to require attention in the future, but some of what's happened here strikes me as unnecessarily mean. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked IP addresses[edit]

A comment in a current ANI discussion about a blocked IP ("Zombie block") made me curious whether there were IPs which had been indef blocked so long ago that the reason for blocking was no longer a concern. I found this: Wikipedia:Database reports/Indefinitely blocked IPs. According to that listing, there are currently 300 indefinitely blocked IPs. 119 of them, almost half, were blocked in either 2006 or 2007. The most recent one appears to be a DSL IP indef blocked in February for making a single racist comment. Perhaps someone could go through this list and review some of these blocks? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I tend to monitor that list from time to time (many should remain blocked), though it's probably due for another review. I shall do so again over the next few days. FYI the database report list excludes a whole load of IP addresses. Much bigger problems exists at CAT:OP and this blocklist link. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Also an idea to ask checkusers to review and clean up these lists periodically. I will drop them an email. Risker (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I unblocked my two from that list.--v/r - TP 23:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • shrugs* I would generally support unblocking the ones blocked before, say, 2012, under the obvious provision that they can and will be blocked again if need be, and changing the others to a 365 days block (starting today). I've always held firm beliefs against indef'-blocking IPs and I still stand by that. I work at an ISP and I know that doing anything indefinite to an IP address is pretty much a bad idea. :) ·Salvidrim!·  00:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course, it doesn't apply to those indef'ed by request and to proven proxies and the like, but that goes without saying. Although I'm still saying it. :) ·Salvidrim!·  00:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a relevant thread on the Village Pump suggesting a mass-unblocking of most old indefinite rangeblocks under controlled conditions. You are requested to participate in that discussion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I will be reviewing some of these blocks using checkuser when I get the chance. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Heads-up on a possibly troublesome AfD[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.

I'd be grateful if admins could keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wikipedia controversies, as I expect we will see banned users attempting to intervene in it. Prioryman (talk) 17:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And as predicted, a likely banned user has intervened. [1]. Prioryman (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
H'mmm seems pretty much in favour of keep, atm... watching with impartial interest! Basket Feudalist 18:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Prioryman,
Is this the last attempt to canvass for your DRV after the snow closure of your AfD?
When will the canvassing, personal attacks, and vendetta end?
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Would you mind pointing out where the DRV is mentioned above, because I certainly don't see it. Prioryman (talk) 10:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, the DRV came after this posting, so it's certainly not canvassing for the DRV. Anyways, this is no longer relevant so I'm closing it. -- King of ♠ 10:42, 17 April 2013 (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.

Closure review of Simple English proposal at Village Pump[edit]

The discussion, and its closure is located at the Village Pump archive.

This proposal had already run once, and had a convincing majority, but due to a technical mistake, had to go through discussion again. All the relevant links are located at the top of the discussion. Relevant discussion about the closure may be found on the closing admin's talk page.

The second time this proposal was run, it met some opposition, but there were still a majority of supports. But it was closed as a no consensus based on a simple tally of all the votes. As mentioned in this continuation thread by Osiris, it failed to account for others who implied their support for the proposal without actually using the word. It also failed to count those users who participated in the original discussion, but not in the new one. Most importantly, this closure did not look into the inherent value of the various arguments; giving all of them equal importance, a view disputed by me and Osiris in the continuation thread.

Going by all these factors than a simple count of the votes, I believe that this discussion should have been closed in favour of the proposal, which is why I request another uninvolved admin to review this closure.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.239.137 (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the new discussion received far more attention and fewer procedural mistakes. Nathan's logic seems sound so I don't see a reason that his close would need to be re-accomplished. Nathan glossed over much of the discussion in the close rationale, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was oblivious to each of the points before Osiris made them. With the points Osiris brought up, some of those opinions would be discounted (such as just not liking SEWP) and others would be given such minor weight. Besides, many of the points Osiris brought up would be arguments not to implement this which gives more credibility to a no-consensus leaning close.--v/r - TP 13:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the actual decision: it could have gone either way. If you weigh up all the arguments properly there's probably about a 66/67% support rate, not an overwhelming consensus. My issue was with the method used to judge it; that is, tallying the !votes (perhaps hastily, given the miscount) and giving equal weight to each comment despite the irrelevancy of some. That's not a surmisation, it's what the closer said he did in his statement. The points I listed down the bottom were just a rehash of the arguments made as an example of the diversity of responses; many of them had counter-arguments that I didn't list. Osiris (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?[edit]

I am conducting a survey at the link above to accomplish two things. First, I hope to gather a list of some potential future candidates interested in cratship. Second, I hope to be able to use the results of the survey as solid evidence of how admins view the RfB process and what factors cause the very low amount of activity. Anyone is welcome to comment, but the input of admins is particularly desired. Regards, AutomaticStrikeout (TCSign AAPT) 14:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Incivility regarding User:Charlesdrakew and others[edit]

Statement by Rcsprinter123[edit]

I start this AN report, along with Adam mugliston, as the result of almost 2 years, 9 months and 29 days of torment suffered by myself, and pretty much 4 years, 7 months and 29 days by Adam. This is in regard to general unpleasantness and derogatory comments used semi-regularly by the same crew of editors over and over. Plenty of nearly-but-not-quite personal attacks, which do not reflect or fit into the perfect Wikipedia model of friendly, collaborative editing which users together write and improve an encyclopedia for the world to use. I feel degraded and inferior when those terms are used to describe me or somebody doing the same type of editing as me. The most prominent term is “bus spotter”. Bob Re-born has used this phrase to talk about, or even talk to, people involved with the public transport section of Wikipedia, a total of five times (many more actually, these are the only ones I care to link to), Stuart.Jamieson once and Charlesdrakew three times. Others have been seen to do this at times also. Peterkingiron and Alzarian16. Red stucco. JetBlast. MickMackNee.

While here, I’d commend Youngmangonewest for speaking out against that at this AfD debate where they made a point about unprofessional language used against those who join the bus side of things. Anoraks and flasks, Bob is claiming. He has no evidence we do any of that! He shouldn’t be allowed to talk about us as if we are not equals and are lower down, because of a passion for transport.

Demiurge1000 did tackle the problem at this AfD in July 2011, which presented an amount of evidence against Charles and Bob (known as Simple Bob at that time).

Basically, what is happening is that Charles is just trying to enforce the policies when it comes to articles, but he is going totally the wrong way about it. On top of being disrespectful to other editors’ views (for instance, if I try to contact him about an issue he will give a curt reply quoting some policy without answering all my questions), he has violated 3RR many a time and just wants to have the last word, while all the time believing that he is right, everybody else is wrong and as a result ranks lower than him. Treating editors like me as scum is not something I really want to have to put up with while going along with my daily business. Most of this will relate to pages to do with lists of bus routes, which is a whole other argument I need to bring up in time (they all got deleted), and while appearing to show no expertise in the area, whereas I do, I don’t think he should be charging about telling me what to do and reverting and delinking and everything else. I’d love to provide a few diffs, but unfortunately all the pages are deleted.

I have created this report to bring together and expose the poor judgement and terrible attitude used by those few who think they are higher than Adam and I. Additionally, I hope it will make the administrators think twice and perhaps sanction some of the editors I have mentioned, particularly Charles, who has been on our case, and one could say harrassing us, for a few years. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 22:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Adam mugliston[edit]

I agree with all of Rcsprinter’s points above. As well as them, I would like to add that Charles has exhibited many times what felt to me like wikihounding. Throughout my browsing of Wikipedia as a reader, I have encountered unsourced articles or sections, which no one seems to have minded. On some occasions, I added a sentence which was unsourced. Charles would then just ‘pop up’ and revert my work. As much as I understand that everything should be sourced, seeing the several unsourced articles, I decided that a sentence tagged on to a sourced paragraph would be fine. When confronted, Charles replied that he had the article on his watchlist, which personally I find a rather convienient coincidence, as I feel Charles has a personal grudge towards myself and possibly Rcsprinter and others and that he almost takes pleasure in ‘ruining’ our work. Due to this happening quite a few times, I feel that Charles has been watching me and therefore wikihounding. Another point I would like to make is that I noticed that Charles has removed references from some lists of bus routes. Unfortunately, I am not able to provide diffs for those, as the articles have now been deleted. Some time after Charles’ removal of references, the article would then be listed for AfD using the lack of references (or a sufficient amount of them) as one of the reasons for deletion of the article. The listing would be done either by Charles or one of his ‘friends’. I think claiming that primary sources are not good is absurd for this subject. Buses are perfectly notable and an important part of every community, however due to the widely available primary sources, not many organisations that would be classified as good as a secondary source write about them and those that do are often local newspaper or magazines that have no websites and are not easy to get hold of (i.e. they are not archived for the public to see). Therefore, I say that primary sources should be perfectly valid for transport articles and so Charles’ reasoning is not correct. That is why I consider that behaviour as wrong and planned to delete the article and so intentional ruining of my work, returning again to the personal grudge Charles seems to bare to myself and other users interested in buses.  Adam Mugliston  talk  22:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Stuart Jamieson's Statement[edit]

Wow, I once use the term Bus Spotter (which according to our article is a valid collective grouping), to directed at any wikipedian but to refer to groups of individuals I deal with at my work (Who come to my work take down bus serial numbers and to photograph said buses) and I'm taken to the Administrators board for incivility about it? I'm unsurprised by a number of comments made here, as I've said before I do have expertise in this area and like Charles I believe our policies and guidelines as to what content should or should not be added is clear and this has been reiterated to Rcsprinter and to Adam yet they continued to create articles that had no independent secondary sourcing, add in links that failed our tests for Spam, added unsourced claims and content, etc and so on. It's now they're upset, because the finality of notifications and reversions has come and this information has been removed, so they seek retribution in reporting us to the Administrators (it should be noted that arbiter, Worm that Turned has previously adopted both these editors and kept a close eye on both mediating edits by them in the past). We did advise these editors that such content would be better on Wikia, but they ignored us with Adam's friend Wilbysuffolk taking the eventual lead in migrating these lists to Wikia which has much less strict policies and no requirement to write content that is encyclopaedic in scope, but Adam's defence in continuing to breach policy and guideline has been that their work would have a lower footfall on Wikia. It's no surprise that Charle's responses to these continual breaches of policy have become shorter as they continue to get repeated.

The irony is that most of the recent deletions have not been by the parties named above but by two other editors Adam's (real life) friend wilbysuffolk and Davey2010 both of who have a declared interest is buses as well but both realise that the edits and articles made are problematic and detrimental to the project and needed be removed, both like Charles, Bob and Myself were following and watching a great deal of bus related articles because we had found that discussion of the field was strongly likely to result in poorly sourced articles that were unlikely to be repairable. However barring any specific other complaints against me other than my use of that term in a disinterested way, I'll leave my statement here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart.Jamieson (talkcontribs) 06:12, 15 April 2013‎


Charlesdrakew's statement[edit]

This complaint seems to be born of frustration at having most of the articles they work on deleted by strong consensus which included many non involved editors. A number of allegations have been made against me which conveniently cannot be backed up with evidence because of page deletions. I have in fact never intentionally violated 3RR although on the odd occasion I may have forgotten that I had reverted the previous day but within 24 hours. I have never deleted references that were from reliable sources. Rcsprinter and Adam have both consistently refused to accept Wikipedia's core policies on notability and verifiability and both have a strong page ownership problem. Rcsprinter actually emailed me while his last abortive Request for Adminship was open telling me to keep out of "his area". Much of Adam's statement above is his opinion on what Wikipedia should be as opposed to community consensus on what it should be. I think one incident he refers to is this edit on a page which was on my watchlist because I had edited that page before. It took a small edit war involving a number of editors to persuade him you cannot do that. I have never knowingly edited outside of Wikipedia policy and if some editors do not agree with those policies that is their problem.--Charles (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Comment in response to Rcsprinter123's point. I am a little bit WP:INVOLVED with the recent deletion of the bus-titled redirects that appeared recently in WP:RFD. I noticed that the recent group of deletions was listed separately 10 times, so I grouped them all together and formed the proposal at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 4#List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire. Granted, I thought something was a bit odd at that time, given that all of these redirects seemed to be voted on in the same way by the same editors, but I never put the pieces together (mainly due to me not knowing anything about these previous AfDs.) However, here's my point: I have no desire to be WP:INVOLVED with this discussion... except to point this out:
There is currently another discussion regarding redirects that include "List of bus routes..." in their titles at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 14#Lists of bus routes in East Anglia. I might be so inclined as to ask someone to chime in on that RfD proposal ... and this point here ... since this discussion seems to be related to that new RfD proposal. Steel1943 (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I could add quite a lot here, but very short of time so just one comment for now. I may have time to add some more evidence about sixteen hours from now. Anyway, if this is still going on then I'm very disappointed. I asked an administrator to have a quiet word with Charles after he used the phrase "autistic obsessives" in one of his regular diatribes about these people whose interests (or nature) he looks down on. (It was a particularly problematic comment because it also seemed to be part of a conversation where co-ordinated participation in AfDs was being planned, i.e. canvassing.) Charles' reply to a friendly word from an administrator about that, was "What are you, the Wiki thought police? ... Some of us just like to call a spade a spade." This was several months after the AfD linked by Rcsprinter above where several people had expressed concern about this sort of language and stereotyping being used. So clearly the editor has had opportunity to change his approach, and has chosen not to.

This may or may not be the best forum for getting something done about this, but I'd like to see someone make a reasonable attempt at trying. A topic ban might be a way forward, since it always seems to be on these particular topics that these outbursts occur. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Just what "regular diatribes about these people" would that be Demiurge? Diffs please.--Charles (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Really? That's your counter argument? You pick only two words, of which has little to nothing to do with Demiurge's central point, to pick at? Wow. Talk about a Red herring.--v/r - TP 18:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes really. Where is the evidence? We have a link to an almost two year old AfD where intense discussion took place, where unfounded accusations were made against me, but where I made no personal attacks nor was I uncivil to anybody. I do not believe I have ever been uncivil to either of the complainants. Nothing else has been produced. So where is the evidence?--Charles (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you think this comment was appropriate? Or your response to an admin pointing it out to you? That is Demiurge's evidence. But you've ignored that and latched onto a couple of words with minor connection to his central point in an effort to divert attention away. Clearly, a red herring.--v/r - TP 03:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps my choice of words was inappropriate on that one occasion and I apologise for it. It will not happen again. It was not directed at any editor in particular and certainly not at those bringing this case. That does not however give Demiurge any reason to claim that this single mistake is part of a pattern when it is not. I normally remain calm and civil in the face of provocation.--Charles (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It does seem like that was directed at particular editors, as that was related to the lists of bus routes, therefore you do quite strongly suggest that this is about the creators of the lists and so myself, Rcsprinter and Wilby and possibly others. That mistake was in a pattern as you have been uncivil and rude before several times. You may remain calm in the face of provocation, but you also provoke a lot.  Adam Mugliston  talk  21:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "part of a pattern"? It seems apt to quote my comments from the AfD already linked above, seems like a pretty glaring pattern to me, this was over twenty months ago and it's clear the behaviour is still going on now; "More concerningly, this current nomination came exactly two minutes after Simple Bob intervened in an edit war on the article about colour schemes, where Charlesdrakew had already reached 3RR. Disagreements about colour schemes are not a good reason for frivolous AfD nominations as a form of retaliation. More concerningly still, the attempts to demean the article authors as "anoraks" (a derogatory term - look at a dictionary) or as "trainspotting" or "planespotting" is unseemly and not appropriate for a collaborative editing environment - trains and planes are not mentioned in the article at all, they have no relevance. Further, this comment could very well be seen as a personal attack, and at the very least its tone is entirely inappropriate. Responding to an expression of concern about it by demanding that expression of concern should be struck, followed by threats that "I may well take this to ANI", is an indication that Charlesdrakew at least has lost track of acceptable standards of behaviour. Replying to other editors with farmyard noises, as Charlesdrakew has also done more than once, is another hint that all may not be well. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this post shows the dangers of allowing a pair of editors who have canvassed and conspired off-wiki (more on that later) to bring a collective complaint against multiple editors. I hope you are not deliberately conflating what Bob has said in the past with what I have said and throwing it all on me but it does come across that way. It would help if you provided some diffs so we could see what was actually said and by whom. You talk about "frivolous AfD nominations" but all of those articles have subsequently been deleted so they can hardly have been frivolous. You have had to scrape a long way down the barrel to find a twenty month old conversation in which words were being put in my mouth by other editors pushing me to quite justifiably threaten a report on it. As for the one link you do provide a look further down this page will show how frustrating Adam mugliston's interminable circular arguments about being allowed to add original research can become. And then you claim that these widely spaced and pretty trivial incidents show some regular pattern.--Charles (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • [2] "Quack! Quack!" is one diff and clearly posted by you. More "quacking" is also clearly visible on that page. And once again, neither I nor Rcsprinter canvassed. I have already said, this was a joint decision to follow this route. Neither of us specifically said "I'm starting an AN against Charles and Stuart, come help me take them down" or anything similar. We both agreed we wanted to pursue the lack of civility by Charles in particular and Rcsprinter suggested this as a possibility, which we both agreed on together. Any one of us could easily provide a very large amount of events in which you have been rude and uncivil, just by looking through your talk page archive's. Come to canvassing, you've canvassed yourself Charles...  Adam Mugliston  talk  15:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That wasn't my claim, the claim is that these two editors have independently decided to embark on these AfDs. Wilby and Davey don't know each other off-wiki as far as I've know and I haven't seen any evidence for puppetry, it's Adam and Wilby who do. If there's an issue with off-wiki contact again I'd be asking questions over how much is being said off wiki between RCsprinter and Adam. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. So now, you are accusing another group of editors of meatpuppetry as well, but with separate intentions from the other group of accused meatpuppets. Understood. Steel1943 (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Nope still not accusing anyone of meat puppetry. I said the latter group had Off Wiki contact that they've refused to clarify, I said the former group have no connection as far as I know. I have not said that either group is engaged in any puppetry and I'm not sure what your intent is in repeating such a strawman.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course I've been involved in the discussions, that's why my name is listed at the top of this section with an accusation against me. The ones who should be dodging the boomerang are those who brought this complaint here against me. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no question of meat puppetry here. A complete red herring. Adam.mugliston began by cooperating with Wilby on bus route articles but soon fell out and has been extremely rude and uncivil about Wilby on many occasions that I have noticed on-wiki. Davy is acting independently.--Charles (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Stuart: My off-wiki contact is private and nothing to do with Wikipedia. We all have the power to free speech and as much as that is limited here on wiki, it is not off it. With this, I am not saying that mine and RCSprinter's and mine and Wilby's contact related to Wikipedia, but my point is hat if we want it to be about Wikipedia, we are perfectly permitted to.
  • Charles: Would you like to show me where I've been "extremely rude"? I don't recall extreme rudeness towards him.  Adam Mugliston  talk  08:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • When off-wiki contact relates to editing Wikipedia it does concern Wikipedia. I note that there is nothing on your or Rcsprinter's talk pages about bringing this complaint. Your statement above was posted immediately after Rcsprinter had posted a complaint specifically including you. This proves an off-wiki conspiracy to "have a go" at a few editors who prevent you from turning Wikipedia into a bus route directory as you seek to do. I wonder if this case should be procedurally closed as stemming from off-wiki canvassing.--Charles (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Firstly, As you can see from the opening sentence of Rcsprinter's statement, this is a joint report between Rcsprinter and myself. We both agreed that this is a route we would like to follow to pursue Charles’ incivility and joined efforts to file this report. The times of posting are so close together, as we had planned to file this report yesterday and I was waiting for Rcsprinter to post his statement and after seeing his statement, I posted mine. Secondly, Who said about about ‘’turning’’ Wikipedia into a bus directory? I merely want to fill the large gap Wikipedia has in this subject, just because books don’t publish things about them. If we can have a list of train stations, which we do, we can have a list of bus ‘’routes’’. Buses are the primary form of transport in England and many places around the world and therefore if forms of transport used less than them can have articles, so can they.  Adam Mugliston  talk  15:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • A question for Charles: Where has Adam been "extremely rude and uncivil about Wilby"? Peter James (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's precisely what I wanted to know, yet as you can see above, I didn't get a reply...  Adam Mugliston  talk  19:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Too busy to dig around for it today but it can be found.--Charles (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • This is the only example I can locate at this time. Pretty uncivil to myself and denigrating Wilby. I have seen stronger comments re. Wilby but cannot locate them as yet.--Charles (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The uncivilness was towards you and not Wilby and I simply mentioned that Wilby's lists weren't formatted as well as mine, although perhaps in a overly harsh tone due to your earlier uncivilness. It all comes back to you.  Adam Mugliston  talk  21:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment in reply to Charles’s statement, I would like to point out that this is not about the deletion of lists of bus routes, but about his and others’ incivility and frequent rudeness.  Adam Mugliston  talk  15:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to say that Adam mugliston and Wilbysuffolk do know each other well in real life, so anybody trying to do a bit of speculation that's there for you. Lets get back to saying how badly Charles has been behaving. Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 21:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment to all of you[edit]

Have any of you people read either the large bold notice at the top of this page, or the extremely prominent bright red editnotice that pops up each time you try to edit this page? This is "a page for posting information and issues that affect administrators", not the place to come to settle your arguments, the headquarters of the Wikipedia Civility Police, or the place to make vague accusations of "off-wiki conspiracies" over an argument about bus routes for god's sake. Arbcom is that way. 94.196.134.192 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

  • WP:Requests for comment/User conduct is one option, mentioned in the dispute resolution page, but discussion of a proposed topic or interaction ban (probably what "sanction" refers to) should "generally take place at the administrators' noticeboard or a subpage thereof", according to the banning policy. Peter James (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I would not denigrate the editor who started this thread by using such impolite language as began this section ("you people"). A simple direction to the appropriate forum would have been sufficient. I applaud User:Rcsprinter123 and the others, all of whom seem to be frustrated in edits being done in their chosen specialty. We can't all be interested in English bus routes, but then not all of us are English or ride buses. A Beer summit is advised at the local pub. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
It would help if the editors took the advice they've been given and wrote interesting articles on bus routes (we've regularly pointed them to well written articles about that very subject such as Buses in Bristol)but essentially all that is ever done on the subject (of routes) is to reformat primary sources such bus timetables and present the result as a table that is neither in scope nor notable and a link to the original timetable from a a parent article would be of more use to our readers.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Don't want to drop him in it, but Worm That Turned told me this was the best place to come. I didn't think it was serious enough for arbitration or dispute resolution or an RfC. Rcsprinter (talk) @ 16:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Since when has expertise in a subject been a requirement for editing? It is more general editors like myself who are best placed to keep some sense of proportion as to what is of encyclopaedic interest and what is enthusiast cruft. Unlike rail articles which are well regulated UK bus related articles are in a shocking mess and if Stuart, Bob or myself were topic banned from editing them that could only get worse.--Charles (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you make up a few scenarios to prove your point, because I'm skeptical of it at the moment. Rcsprinter (warn) @ 17:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Expertise isn't a requirement, but is jolly useful and doesn't drive the people, who have more expertise, nuts. And should you or Stuart or Bob be banned, bus articles would improve and a more comprehensive coverage would flourish, contrary to the destruction that can be seen following your path.  Adam Mugliston  talk  17:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Bet I have more expertise than you, but then we've been through that discussion before and it didn't change anything. As for more comprehensive coverage, as I say above we've been encouraging you to write articles with comprehensive coverage - whatever happened to the proseBuses in Colchester article you were going to write to replace List of bus routes in Colchester at its first AfD? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
As I have mentioned before, I couldn't find enough secondary sources to justify it. As much as I think a list of bus routes is perfectly fine in a list of bus routes, probably not quite in a prose article. Also, personally I'm not interested in history, so I take no pleasure in writing the article and for me that's the most important thing.  Adam Mugliston  talk  18:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
So where is this comprehensive coverage going to flourish from when Charles, Bob, and Myself are topic banned - if there are no secondary sources to write it from and you aren't interested in writing the comprehensive coverage? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The comprehensive coverage relates to what I've previously said about their being a gap in Wikipedia's coverage. The comprehensiveness will come from the fact that we will finally be able to fill the gap for all major cities in the country.  Adam Mugliston  talk  19:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
The gap that you self identify as coming from the fact that secondary sources do not cover it so the only thing you can fill it with is primary sourced information and original research. It has been said to you many times over the past 4 or 5 years, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. An encyclopaedia takes multiple secondary sources or tertiary sources and summarises them in a convenient format, so that the reader doesn't have to be an expert in the field to understand the secondaries or get overwhelmed by the raw data of the primary sources. What it does not is simply reformat and display the primary data (it's not a database) though it may contain carefully selected snippets of that primary data to support its synopsis of the secondaries. If people want the raw data it's reasonable for us to direct them to the location of it but there's no need for us to reprint it, reformatted or not. If you want to fill the gap, find the secondaries that do exist and use them - it's hard but it's worth the work when you create an article that manages to get to GA or FA and articles on Bus Routes have achieved that so it's your disinterest that's holding creating the gap and preventing our coverage being as comprehensive as it could be. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
It's funny, since what you described above is almost what I've been doing. As you said, people don't want to "get overwhelmed by the raw data of primary sources" and therefore I have summarised what is in the raw data into one simple table. As you can see, I have never added a timetable to an article. A list of bus routes, that is comprehensive, is very hard to find and requires knowledge of the subject to be found. Usually, you can get a list of route numbers (but not their destinations) or one route with destinations and a timetable, therefore a list of bus routes is a good compromise and nicely summarise the more detailed data available.  Adam Mugliston  talk  06:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd also like to point one that I have never put original research into my work. As much as I have been accused of it several times, I have never put any in.  Adam Mugliston  talk  06:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
No what you're doing above is simply refactoring the raw timetable data it's not summarising that data, and you could do the same by pulling it out of a timetable database with an automated query. A Summary of it would be something like "Buses run by Stagecoach leave the Town Centre headed to Andover, Swansea, and Newport." which could go in a prose article. As for your second point you say above "On some occasions, I added a sentence which was unsourced. [...] As much as I understand that everything should be sourced, seeing the several unsourced articles, I decided that a sentence tagged on to a sourced paragraph would be fine." What do you think Original research is if it's not adding unsourced material to articles? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A summary is not writing the whole thing. As I have already said, I have not written the timetable out but I have summarised several timetables into one list, by simply listing the routes. Original research would be if I went to say Brighton in this case and stood at a bus stop to see what type of bus came up. I found the information on a website, but I just did not link to it, as I didn't think it was worth it for a few words.  Adam Mugliston  talk  21:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Nope, feel free to check out the wiktionary definitions of wict:summarize "To review the key facts" and wict:refactor "To rewrite existing [Data/code/text] to improve it's readability without affecting it's meaning." The reality is an automated query to the UK NaPTAN or NPTDR databases could produce exactly these lists from the underlying timetable data. It wouldn't summarise which facts are actually key and review them to explain why they are key, and nor do you in your lists. On your second point, you're now defending your actions as not Original Research but either a copyright violation, or plagarism and you think this is better? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The route is a key fact of a timetable. On the second point, you're now accusing me of things with no basis. Who ever said that I copied it word for word? I found information about other buses running and added a clause onto a sentence that this happened. Point out the copyvio here if you think there is one.  Adam Mugliston  talk  15:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
And in what way are those key facts reviewed, or in what way does it explain why this route is important - you continue to insist it is but have never shown any evidence for this position and current consensus is that they are not. On the second point you're running round in loops; there are three outcomes I've outlined 1. This is new information not found in any sources but you've seen by observation or extracted from raw data - this is Original Research, 2. This is information found in a source, copied word for word and not credited back to the original source - This is a Copyvio, 3. This is information found in a source, you've rewritten it into your own words but not credited the original source - This is Plagiarism. The lack of a source means that it's likely going to fall into at least one of these categories but without seeing the original diff I don't know which it is and I'm not going to specifically accuse you of a particular one (as you are claiming). There is an adage that when you're in a hole you should stop digging. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't believe you're still bothering to argue about 6 words. 6 words. Really? Of all the original researched and unsourced things on here, you choose my 6 words. And to explain the situtation, the website I found listed the main type of bus and then others. I contracted that into a clause to mention other bus types operate. There's no OR (as I got it from a source, although didn't link to it), Copyvio (the website didn't give those exact words) or Plagiarism (the bus types were listed, it was a summary written completely differently to the website), therefore you have no argument, except I should've linked to it, which I know. Now let's quit arguing over 6 words and get back to the point of this AN.  Adam Mugliston  talk  16:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
If you know it was wrong and don't want to discuss it further, you might want to strikethrough the complaints about Charles reverting it in your statement above, otherwise it's perfectly reasonable to discuss the validity of your allegations. BTW representing someone else's research as your own no matter how much you've rewritten it is plagiarism. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I never presented it as my own work. And my point is there is no need to argue about this further. I've proved your ideas wrong and the problem is sorted. In my statement, the point of it is not that Charles reverts my work, but that he turns up wherever I am. So drop it now, cause it's getting boring.  Adam Mugliston  talk  17:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course you did, if I check the article history and whose name is there, and who is licencing the work under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License I see your name but no reference to the person who wrote the original list so you've not proved any ideas wrong and it's not sorted - you just don't want to talk about it any more (which is surprising since you keep replying) because it's about the fact that Charles rightly corrected your error. Like Charles I have many bus related articles on my watchlist (many less now that they're getting deleted) not just related to you and RCSprinter (many you haven't even edited) so if I see a problematic edit I'm going to sort it nothing to do with stalking you. Your complaint about Charles, Bob, and I is boring you? You could have considered that before bringing it to the Admin noticeboard, but it's roughly how other editors feel when you keep insisting Wikipedia policy shouldn't apply to your actions or to the articles you write. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Stop changing my words. This argument over, once again, 6 words, is boring me, not the entire AN. And rather than bugging me over such a small addition, why don't you address everything else that's not sourced properly?  Adam Mugliston  talk  17:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
You keep going on about "6 words" as if it has significance, the reason given for listing me in this AN is for using 2 words (which weren't directed at you or RCSprinter) are the additional 4 words more or less significant than that? If you're really that bored with it just stop discussing it and I won't have anything to reply to. You can also rest assured all articles on my watchlist are equally cleaned up if something unsourced or extremely poorly sourced is added . 20:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The point of me "going on about 6 words" is that you could clean up articles with significantly more unsourced content, yet choose to bother about just a few words, which really does seem like it's because of me having added them. That's that and over with then.  Adam Mugliston  talk  20:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────And the point of me asking about this is because you have stated that writing on the subject of Bus routes will flourish if Charles, Bob, and I are topic banned. So feel free to instead of discussing your failure to comply with policy in creating/expanding bus articles -to demonstrate well written, policy compliant articles, on bus routes that have been adversely affected by our involvement? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Davey2010[edit]

I see questions have been raised about me & Wilby - I don't know him nor anyone else off of Wikipedia nor are we related ... I'm just the lost sheep! Just thought i'd say... I may of read the above comment wrong but again Me & Adam don't know each other neither .... I like buses & all that but in the end I realized the lists were time consuming, out of date and well pointless, I didn't agree how the afd's were done but we all learn from our mistakes (me included!) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Continued vandalism by User:DoubleVigie[edit]

About a week ago, I mentioned several users who were contray to a bunch of WP policies. The thread has now gone into archive: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive792#please_block_User:.D0.9F.D0.B5.D1.82.D1.80_.D0.A3.D1.82.D1.91.D1.81_and_his_probable_sock_puppet_User:DoubleVigie (I think I mixed up the sock puppet and editor on the original post). User:DoubleVigie has continued to vandalize my talk page and talk pages of articles related to Benedict XVI on his own and with a using a new sock puppet / IP User:2a01:e34:edb4:cae0:94cd:d06d:1641:a6bb. Please block them both. Thanks. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemusfeci) 09:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg User(s) blocked.. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Boston Marathon bombings BLP considerations[edit]

Seems to have resolved itself. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On this article, there is a great deal of contention, at least one block, and several warnings issued regarding adding the 3rd victim's name in the article. There is conflicting information regarding if BLP says we should, and there is at least some question as to the reliability of the information regarding the victim's name. There is a loose consensus to simply delay putting it in the article until we have better information, and some question about the family not wanting it in. While that isn't the primary consideration, the questionable verification concerns do reach into WP:BLP, and it would be helpful if some admin with solid BLP experience would visit and review. I'm not completely sure, but I think waiting until we have positive confirmation is the best way to go, but again, would prefer an outside view there. Thanks. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:06, 17 April 2013 (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.

Change in policy regarding use of subpages?[edit]

NO ADMIN ACTION NEEDED
All that is needed here is a consensus on what the page should be moved to. Once we have that anyone can move the page to the new title. No admin action seems needed at this time, discussion can and should continue on the article talk page where it began. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:26, 18 April 2013 (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.

Has there been a change of policy regarding the use of subpages? If so, than you can ignore what is happening at Perth Agreement and Perth Agreement/Timetable. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talkcontribs) 20:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears there is a brief discussion on the talk page about this, and it does not seem to be a contentious discussion. What was it you wanted from an admin in this situation? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be made into a template. While it doesn't seem problematic in this specific situation, WP:SUB specifically indicates mainspace subpages aren't intended to be possible. :) ·Salvidrim!·  00:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
They're possible in the sense that we can create titles with subpage-style names (otherwise 9/11 would be impossible), but the software treats the slash as just another character for pages in mainspace. As a result, the software doesn't realise that Perth Agreement/Timetable is at all related to Perth Agreement, and someone could end up in the timetable by clicking Special:Random. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2013 (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.

Move discussion - Bioncentrism[edit]

Can an uninvolved admin please weigh up the consensus for the contentious discussion here: Talk:Biocentrism_(theory_of_everything)#Requested_move (some of the move proposals require an admin as well). Bear in mind there was off-wiki canvassing evident in the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Resized file backlog[edit]

Hello, admins: There's currently a backlog of nearly 2,200 files at Category:Rescaled fairuse files more than 7 days old whose old revisions need to be deleted. Any help would be appreciated! —Theopolisme (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of having two different things that I'm avoiding doing... I just knocked it down from 2168 to 1968. I'll try to zap a few more after I actually do the stuff I'm avoiding. :) EVula // talk // // 01:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I knocked off a handful, where the original was over 100K. What's the rationale for deleting an image if it is under 100K?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, answered my own question.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The main problem is that the old revisions violate WP:NFCC#7. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

NFCR[edit]

WP:NFCR is backlogged again, can I get an admin to close 9 requests? these have all been open for at least 4 months, one that goes back 10 months. The sections are:

Thanks, Werieth (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone? Werieth (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
*echo** Images-related discussions are an area that a number of admins stay away from, you might have better luck by directly pinging regular closers? :) ·Salvidrim!·  00:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Come on guys, I would ask the regular closers except there are none. Werieth (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Try B (talk · contribs) or Diannaa (talk · contribs). They have closed a lot of discussions at WP:PUF and WP:FFD recently and might be able to help. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Good grief ... we're reaching a year on some of these? (I'm looking now.) --B (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
One despairs, one really does. -- Dianna (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The ones on the above list are all done. ---B (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

🙈🙉🙊[edit]

Please create 🙈🙉🙊 with the text

#REDIRECT [[Three wise monkeys]] {{R from alternative spelling}}

Thanks. I can't because the title is blacklisted. — The Great Redirector 05:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What kind of black magick is this? Killiondude (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like Damn it, I wanted to create that... Chamal TC 06:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, much as I like it, I can't really see anyone typing it in as a search term -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Boing ... that's an implausible redirect (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Those are the unicode symbols for each of the monkeys, and as the Unicode Spec V 6.00 says about them, "The core emoji sets used by Japanese cell phone carriers contain a large number of characters for emoticon images, and most of the characters in this block are from those sets". Because of this I thought it's quite possible that the emoji-loving Japanese would like to use them. Well, no big deal either way I guess. Chamal TC 12:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Japanese Wikipedia doesn't even have that as a redirect[3]. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
The real question is, where should WP:🙈🙉🙊 redirect to? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Nowhere on en.Wikipedia: --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right. Are there icons for "see evil everywhere", "hear evil everywhere", and "speak evil everywhere"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
What's that? Make it a redirect to WP:AGF, you say? Well alright then, if you insist. EVula // talk // // 04:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, beware. Some administrators like deleting redirects involving the monkeys. Killiondude (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Those characters don't even display properly in the browser on my Japanese smartphone. I think they're only supported in the messaging apps. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
It displays in iOS (Safari). Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
iOS running FF here and it displays them. Killiondude (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm Firefox on a Windows 7 machine and it displays fine. And shouldn't WP:🙈🙉🙊 redirect to ANI? --B (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yellow Infoboxes[edit]

Can someone point me to the discussion regarding changing all the infobox to have a light yellow background. I edit less than I have in the past, so I miss things. The last few times I've been on I've noticed that the infoboxes are yellow. I thought this was just a change to the specific infobox on the articles I was reading, but it appears that this has been a universal change to all infoboxes. Thx in advance. --Trödel 16:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC) (PS I tried searching the wikipedia, mediawiki, template and associated talk namespaces and can't find it)

I'm not seeing any yellow infoboxes - can you please give us a link to one specifically that is yellow? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Interesting - its a very light shade of yellow. Oviedo, Adam Scott (golfer) for example. Also compare Template:Infobox Latter Day Saint biography#Examples with Brigham Young. (also checking my custom css pages - I'm using the Vector skin) --Trödel 17:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Nope, no yellow for me (I'm using Vector with no custom .css). The infobox background for me is exactly the same as the page background. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll look into my css. --Trödel 17:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm seeing the infoboxes linked with a very light grey background, assumed that was normal. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Closing RfCs[edit]

We seem to have a big problem with open RfCs. We have a significant backlog, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure has been used for clearing the backlog. However, now the vast majority of pending requests have been archived, and it seems that no-one will ever do anything about the pending RfCs. Would someone be able to restore the pending close requests to the page? StAnselm (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

They are months old in some cases and don't need to be closed, so I've archived them. If you can see individual RfCs that really do need to be closed, those can be restored, but bear in mind that not all RfCs need formal closure. The problem with the page is that User:Cunard added several old RfCs to it at once, which created an apparent backlog. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Alan Liefting and long blocks[edit]

There is no reasonable expectation that any admin is going to overturn a legitimate block which was completely justified by the very clear topic ban which the community imposed. The editor will have the opportunity to appeal that block at the end of the month should he choose to, and the community can then remove the sanction if it wishes to. In the meantime, this is merely another thread for the same-old people to dredge up the same tired complaints and re-air them, despite their never having gained any significant traction in the past from the community-at-large. For these reasons, I am closing this thread. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2013 (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'm just going to leave these here, without comment – make up your own mind. Take a look at the first. It's my view that there's something wrong here and it's obvious from that first link. If it's not obvious, maybe I'm wrong, then there's discussion of it at the second link. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The situation here is that Alan Liefting has an edit restriction due to long-term complaints about his category-related edits and numerous previous warnings [4]. The restriction is completely objective: "Alan Liefting may not make any category-related edits outside of mainspace until and unless this topic ban is lifted." Since the restriction was established, Alan Liefting has violated it on numerous occasions. As described at [5], he appealed the restriction twice, and the appeals were not successful. He specifically agreed to follow the restriction as part of one unblock [6], but then went back to violating it. The reason that the current block is for three months is that shorter block lengths have not been effective. The first blocks were much shorter, but Alan Liefting declined to change his editing despite the community's clear request in the form of an editing restriction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Blocks should be done as a preventative measure to prevent harm to the pedia, not to make a point or as punishment which seems to be the case. If Alan was doing something that as a harm, I would agree with a block, sanction or not. Since the edits Alan was doing were improvements and not contentious, there is no need for a block and certainly not one of this length. Additionally, I agree with Andy's assessment that the block log appears that CBM has taken an unhealthy interest in ensuring this user is blocked. Both issues of too long of blocks and edit stalking needs to be addressed IMO. Kumioko (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The relevant question is only whether Alan has violated his edit restriction against making "any category-related edits outside of mainspace". In fact, he has, and the purpose of the block is to prevent him from continuing to do so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Just some general comments to address some of the criticism raised here, without offering a specific opinion on the merits of the most recent block. Edit restrictions and/or topic bans are imposed when a community discussion has determined based on repeated, past experience that an editor cannot be trusted to do a certain thing. If the editor nevertheless continues to do that thing, the only way to address it is after the fact with a block, and that block is not only to stop the edits but to act as a deterrent to prevent future harm to Wikipedia (i.e., more of the restricted edits), contra Kumioko's characterization of it as punishment. Such edit restrictions and consequent blocks are applied frequently enough that it doesn't seem at all helpful for Kumioko to complain of that method being applied here as if it is unique to this case.

As for the fact that CBM has been the sole admin to block Alan for violating his topic ban, that doesn't necessarily mean CBM has been hounding him or acting inappropriately; I can think of at least one instance in which I've regularly monitored the contributions of someone under a topic ban and was apparently the only one doing so. The nature of an absolute ban or restriction on making a certain kind of edit is that it isn't permitted regardless of its merit, the whole point for the restriction being the community does not trust the editor to make that judgment for himself, and the only way to avoid whatever problems it was causing is to make the restriction absolute. This necessarily requires some monitoring, as those who have watchlisted affected articles but are unfamiliar with the editor's history are not going to notice anything amiss. That said, when I was monitoring that restricted user, I did not block him myself but instead in each instance posted a notice to ANI, and another admin then blocked them. So perhaps CBM should do the same thing in the future. Sometimes it's good to step back and let someone else act even if only to avoid your continued involvement raising the appearance of something personal even if done in good faith. postdlf (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Alan's restrictions were imposed by the community. He has appealed them a few times and those appeals have been denied by the community. No exemptions were provided for edits that break the letter of the topic ban but may be helpful anyway, the idea was and is that he is not to make such edits. Therefore the only questions we should be asking are:
  • Did Alan violate the letter of his community imposed topic ban?
  • Is CBM in violation of WP:INVOLVED?
If the answers arem, respectively, yes and no, there is no problem except Alan's apparent unwillingness or inability to abide by the terms the community has set for him to contribute here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the "punishment" should fit the crime. The honest to god truth is I don't really care if an editor violates a topic ban as long as the edits being made aren't 1) contentious and 2) are correct. In this case the answer to those quetions are that the edits were not contentious (except the topic ban) and they were correct. I am familiar with the background of the topic ban and I think it had some merit when it was implemented. I also think that Alan has mostly abided by it and has not done the same types of contentious changes he was doing before. The over arching problem I have with these kinds of cases is the utter haphazard way we enforce them. Sometimes we look the other way and sometimes we enforce them, when we feel like it and the admin that takes it for action gets nearly unlimited authority to establish the length of block of their choice. I am not very popular here, I get that and frankly I don't really care anymore. But we cannot simply block every editor that is trying to make changes just because we feel like it. It doesn't really surprise me that the community didn't overturn the sanction. They rarely do. People are quick to vote to implement a sanction but its historically impossible to revoke one. Not that I think for a second it will be taken seriously. I don't really expect for folks to agree with me but that's how I feel. A few things I think should comem out of this discussion. Sanctions should have term limits. Blocks for them should have a limit. CBM is too involved in this case and needs to step aside and let another admin handle it, I think Alan was doing useful edits regardless of the sanction (IAR should probably apply here since several made it very clear to me a couple days ago that sanctions are not exempt from it) and I think I am completely wasting my time by commenting because no one really cares that good edits aren't getting done. We are no longer worried about creating an encyclopedia, we are more worried these days about ensuring that a sanction isn't violated and a policy isn't followed. END OF RANT!Kumioko (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
"The honest to god truth is I don't really care if an editor violates a topic ban as long as the edits being made aren't 1) contentious and 2) are correct." Then it's not a topic ban; it's not anything at all but the status quo before the restriction was imposed. postdlf (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Its not anything anyway. Its a meaningless determination really. We should all be here to build an encyclopedia. Not to sanction users so that they cannot contribute. A big problem with WP these days is too much time is spenting fighting about shit like this and arguing why some helpful contribution violated a sanction, ban or block rather than looking at the edit itself. If Alan was an admin this would have been swept under the rug long ago. Because he is an editor though its a national case. Admins on this site are allowed unlimited power to block and ban users and quite a few of them use their tools abusively. No one cares about them. But let a user edit an article that's only remotely associated to a topic ban (Russavia), create a category (Alan Leifting) or use excel to edit an article (Rich F) and they are blocks for months. I am becoming more and more convinced that Admins on this site are doing more to destroy it than the vandals they should be protecting it from. That includes CBM with his singluar attention to Alan's edits and a number of other vocal admins on this site. The sooner we disolve the Admin cabal the better! Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Note: Alan should be given a means to respond. I suggest that material be included or copied from his talk page, as a restriction to only edit here might not be followed, due to the fact he has violated specific objective restrictions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    The last time he had an AN/only unblock, he did violate it once, but self-reverted. I'll leave it to others to decide whether he can be trusted with an ANI/only unblock. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    I would prefer to see things copied here, if he wishes to respond more than he already has [7]. Moreover, per the outcome of a previous appeal [8], he is not permitted to appeal again until the end of this month. The issue here is simply that he declines to follow the edit restriction, it's not an especially complicated situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It is inappropriate to bring this matter up here, Andy. You've been here long enough to know that the way this board functions is to maximise the dignity and powers of administrators. It is not a place to seek fairness for a content builder. Still, this long punitive block, following the even longer punitive block of Rich F, establishes new precedents in the ease with which administrators can now put down even notable long term productive editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with Epi. This is the Administrators board not the fairness to the user board. Decisions here are frequently not about doing the right thing but protecting the administrator with the vested interests. Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I no longer have any idea if either of you are joking or serious. 8-( Maybe you're not being serious here, but there's no shortage of admins who would be. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Kumioko's complaint is based on two deeply mistaken ideas, which I think we should explicitly disown:
  • that an admin who blocks a user several times thereby becomes "involved" so that further interaction with that user indicates an "unhealthy interest",
  • that editing restrictions can be ignored if the result is "useful".
JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
On the first topic though of CBM not being involved because he has blocked this user multiple times. Its also because he goes out of his way to follow the user around until he finds something to block him for. On the second issue, what I really think is that editing restrictions and topic bans should have a limit. Maybe a year or in some cases shorter just like a block. If you have a topic ban on not creating categories and you stay here long enough you are going to violate it. Accidentally or otherwise. Otherwise we are just setting the user up for failure later on. But it really doesn't matter what I think because I am here to help build an encyclopedia. The only reason I even get involved in these discussions is because I have grown to completely lack faith in many of the admins and feel like someone needs to stand up to them and their abuse. WP used to be a very fun place to edit and a lot of editors I work with were enjoyable to be around. Over the years this place has become more cutthroat and toxic and much less fun due in large part to bully admins that are allowed to do whatever they want, once they get the tools, with no fear that they will ever lose the tools. That needs to change. CBM is involved and he needs to let another administrator step in. Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
It sounds to me like CBM is doing exactly what he is supposed to do. Just because you disagree that topic bans should exist does not entitle you to denounce CBM for acting in good faith according to the currently existing community consensus and established practices. If you think topic bans shouldn't exist, you need to establish community consensus for that opinion to have weight. Otherwise, you are frankly wasting your breathe. The idea that Wikipedia should just be 'fun' without any enforcement of rules seems like a recipe for disaster. Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
When you refer to topic bans, Kaldari, I assume you are talking about the edit restrictions Alan and Rich F were placed under. These restrictions are just rules made up and imposed by admins. In the case of Alan, and particularly Rich F, these rules were "gotcha traps", set in such a way that over time the editors would stumble into them. That would be fine if there was a culture where admins also threw flexibility, common sense and a pinch of basic decency into the mix. We do get that approach at times, for example it can happen when Dennis Brown is involved. But admins of that calibre are not numerous on Wikipedia. Instead, many admins go for rigid rule-based approaches, such as we see here, which presupposes that the rules they made up themselves are sacrosanct. This approach has obvious attractions. Once the rules have been set, admins need do no further work. That can just wait for the targeted editor to err, and then remain in a state of suspended intelligence while they allow their knees to jerk with programmed responses. However restful this approach may be for the involved admins, it is a disaster at building trust with the editor community. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Any admin can observe Alan's edits and step in. Yet they haven't - Carl gets there first. Every time. I'm not going to poke that with a chi-squared test, but it looks to be statistically most unlikely that it's anything other than an "unhealthy interest".
We don't need this. Alan isn't a serious problem. He doesn't need to be stalked like this. In the spirit of collegial editing, even under a topic ban, he shouldn't be stalked like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Some admins unfortunately take blocking way too lightly. Gosh. Three months. Does the blocking admin realize just how long that is? ... ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I do realize how long it is. The first block for violating the topic ban was much shorter: 72 hours. Alan Liefting had the opportunity since then to file several appeals, but they were not successful and the restriction has not been changed. A fair process has been followed. The reason this block is so long is simply that Alan has worked through all the shorter block lengths. At any point he could have begun to follow the restriction, and avoid another, longer block. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, Carl is obviously keeping an eye on Alan. The community (not admins, the community at large) has placed restrictions on alan. Carl is following the terms of those restrictions, which have no listed exceptions and call for escalating blocks each time Alan is found to be in violation. I agree that in most cases rigid adherence to rules is a bad thing, but Alan's severe WP:IDHT behavior does not make one at all confident that granting exceptions in cases where he clearly violated those terms, which he is perfectly aware of, would be wise. We are way, way beyond AGF here, Alan has been told what the community expects of him, and has, by his actions, sent a clear message that he does not respect the community's will and will violate the topic ban if he wants. Carl blocks him each time because Carl is apparently watching for violations. How are we to blame him for remaining vigilant in doing what the community has said it wants done in this situation? As I said before, the problem here is alan's refusal to abide by what is a very simple and easy to follow restriction. Block lenghts have been escalated each time, per the terms the community imposed. Frankly I would have gone for an indef block by now as it is clear alan has no intention of sticking to the terms of the ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Well I guess I really don't have what it takes to be an admin after all. I still believe in the good old days when blocks were only used to prevent harm to the pedia. Sanction or not, if there is no harm done then we aren't preventing anything and the block is punitive in nature. Bottom line! There is no doubt that Alan is creating some categories outside of mainspace but he certainly is not doing the same types of edits that were done prior to the sanction so IMO he is still upholding the spirit of it. I also still agree with Andy above that CBM is taking an unhealthy interest in Alan's edits. Admins on this site are block happy these days and there are no shortage of admins who are willing to jump in and enforce a sanction. Yet CBM is the first in every case for the last several "violations"? When he does few other edits at all. Its truly troubling but then again as I said above. Admins are above reproach on this site and everyone knows that once an admin makes a decision it must be the right one. There are always a few peers to jump in and back them up. Kumioko (talk) 23:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
And yet knowing all that you waste your time here. The logic of what administrators like CBM do is that prevention is ensured by escalating punishments. Surely nobody really believes the "blocks are preventative, not punitive" party line any longer? Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure Alan has WP:IDHT problems and at times can be high maintenance. So can be many admins. On balance Alan's overall input is decidedly positive, and it's now been lost to Wikipedia because admins will not, or lack the skills to develop more flexible and human ways of dealing with editor issues. I didn't come here to contribute under a harsh regime operating a rigid quasi-legal system which treats content builders as though they were criminals. It is staggering, the number of admins here who seem unable to distinguish long term committed and competent content builders from vandals. I continue to contribute because I think Wikipedia is a great project which shouldn't be allowed to crumble just because it is let down by a dysfunctional admin system. I still have faith that it is this admin system, which devalues and disempowers its content builders, that will eventually crumble and be replaced by something more positive.
As an example of the way admins make themselves special by sanctifying their rules, look at the statement above: "The community (not admins, the community at large) has placed restrictions on alan." This appeal to some imaginary "community at large" is used to place on a pedestal an arbitrary restriction made up by a tiny handful of admins. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Alan's edit restriction was unreasonably broad, in my opinion, but I accept that the community decided otherwise. Alan deliberately ignored the restriction, and I expected this block would come. Process has been followed, and Wikipedia is the worse for it.-gadfium 00:47, 19 April 2013 (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.
  • Since when did you become elevated to "the community-at-large", Beyond My Ken. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Kayvan abbassi[edit]

Guys, I've found a really odd article that might need some eyes. Have a look at Kayvan abbassi. It was created by an editor named Abbasi Keyvan (talk · contribs), then edited almost exclusively by Sledgepotk (talk · contribs), before being nominated for deletion via redlinked AFD tag by - wait for it - Kayvanabbassi (talk · contribs). All three accounts are exclusive to this article - Abbasi Keyvan and Kaybanabbasi have made their only edits adding content to this article, while the third account's only edits blanked much of that content (only to have it restored by IPs). I don't know if the subject would survive an actual AFD, and was inclined to delete it out of hand as an A7 speedy, but the original version seemed to claim notability. So, since I'm about to leave anyway, I figured I'd punt. My focus is what to do with the article, and as such (and due to time), I have not yet notified the editors named here; if someone wants to do that for me, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • The AFD didn't create the new page, looks like either a copy/paste or borked twinkle edit. That is odd, particularly the one that keeps deleting, piecemeal. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Precisely. The AFD showed up on Snotbot's Bad AFD log as an article with no debate tagged for AFD. Normally, I'd complete it if there's a rationale or tell the editor who tagged it to formulate a rationale. But given the strange edit history here, I didn't know how to proceed - is one of them the subject? Or the other? What about the third guy? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
As the "article" is now no more than a list of external links, I have tagged it for A1 deletion.--ukexpat (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Any admins able to help with WP:RM/TR real quick?[edit]

 Done King of ♠ 02:21, 19 April 2013 (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.

Surprisingly, WP:RM/TR has a 2-day backlog ... which almost never happens. I managed to perform as many of the moves as I could as a non-admin that were truly technical moves, but I cannot perform the rest. Steel1943 (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2013 (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.

Boston Marathon bombing suspect[edit]

Closing to prevent further attention to someone unrelated to the event. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I just deleted the above linked article and protected it from recreation per WP:BLP. As I suspect this will draw attention, and I'm about to go to bed (3 AM here), any admin should feel free to reverse/adjust my actions as needed. This is related to the Boston Marathon bombings. AuburnPilot (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

At least as of now, what you've done seems like a good idea. No reason to publish negative info on someone we don't know all the facts about. -- King of ♠ 08:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand that the case of Sunil Tripathi, and the strange transmogrification of his story from a missing Brown student to redacted per BLP. I don't know what the right course of action is for situations like this, but I would like to point out that redacted per BLP he was already notable as a minor national missing persons case. His odd disappearance was featured on many news programs, including Good Morning America. redacted per BLP but I think deleting the page simply because it didn't have enough sources in it, especially since so many reliable sources exist on him, is the wrong course of action. I would ask that you take whatever steps are needed to review this on Friday morning. AdRem (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Good deletion. There is no hard evidence of any connection to these events, only rumor and speculation that has now been challenged by verifiable reporting by an NBC News anchor. Law enforcement sources told Pete Williams that Tripathi is not a suspect at all - that the rumors and speculation are incorrect. Maybe his sources are wrong, but until we have hard facts, we should not speculate. polarscribe (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

AdRem (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC) redacted per BLP AdRem (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. There is a huge, huge, huge question that they are the two suspects. There is not a single reliable source to be found for the name of any suspect and, in fact, one major American news network (NBC) has gone on record and specifically refuted the claim that Trepathi is a suspect, citing information from "multiple" law enforcement sources who have stated that the suspects are foreigners who have been in the U.S. for no more than a year and received military training overseas, and that specifically the rumored names being tossed around are incorrect. You are right that information is rapidly changing, and at this point, it is changing to look like the amateur Internet detectives went and falsely accused yet another person of being a terrorist. polarscribe (talk) 10:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP isn't here to be made continuously up to date like a news ticker on CNN. The fact that so much information is coming out, much of it speculative, is an especially good reason to hold off the creation of any potention BLP violating articles. Blackmane (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
redacted per BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdRem (talkcontribs) 10:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact that names were mentioned on a police radio is not proof that they have been positively identified. I have been watching and listening to this all night and morning and there has never been verification of any names coming from any source other than this police radio. Lots of stuff goes out on police/fire radios that ends up being wrong. They are not "unmistakably the guys" and you are violating BLP by the very act of talking about them in this manner. polarscribe (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for my impassioned language if it offended you--I'm absolutely exhausted, and, candidly, as a result, I've been less judicious in my word choice and framing than I otherwise would be. Separate Tripathi from the Boston bombing story completely, and Tripathi has still been a notable, national, if minor story for weeks. I think there's a very strong argument to be made that it would still have been notable as the national missing person story it started out as in the weeks prior. That's all I'm saying. I don't know when the article was created, but I would imagine it was before the Boston Bombing story crossed into it. If there was an article before the bombing suspect angle, I think it was questionable to delete it after that angle appeared just because that portion of the article may have been tenuous. I'm obviously not a big fan of sudden page deletions, because undoing those deletions, assuming such a thing is merited, involves SO much red tape, and in the meantime, people are deprived of the benefit of article that can change and grow.AdRem (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Best way to avoid that people feel the need to add this to the Boston article, is by adding something like the following: "The media has reported on possible names of the suspects, but have not been able to confirm these names as suspects". It's a bit of a disclaimer, but it will satisfy peoples need for 'up to date' information, while at the same time not totally ignoring our rules. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The Associated Press is now reporting that the suspects are from Russia, near Chechnya. This whole set of accusations has been nothing more than another bunch of amateur Internet detectives labeling an innocent person as a terrorist. I request that this section be archived, if not deleted entirely, per WP:BLP. The sooner this person's name is taken out of circulation regarding these attacks, the better. polarscribe (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

The Texas explosion has a fledgling article already - West Fertilizer Plant explosion - and I expect this will be much like the Boston Marathon bombings article in terms of edit pace. I'm sure it will get lots of attention but extra admin eyes from the start would be useful. Cheers, Stalwart111 04:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Actually, looks like it is doing well without semi-protection, which is a good thing. I will try to peek in from time to time. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 20:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Looks like someone added PC1 protection to the page. Maybe I will warm up to it later, but I really don't care for PC1, especially on these busier pages. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 03:13, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover[edit]

There are 2 request at that page for almost 2 weeks. I beleive an administrator should go and watch that page.--Pratyya (Hello!) 09:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • ☑Y Both done this morning. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Backlog at the AWB Checkuser page[edit]

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2013 (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.

There is a pretty big backlog at the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage. Would someone familiar with this process and has admin rights mind taking a look? Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 20 April 2013 (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.

Improper use of speedy deletion, asking for article restoration and review of admin's use of deletion tools[edit]

MOVED ON
deleted article userfied, discussion taking place at DRVBeeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2013 (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.

Deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) speedy deleted the article Beautiful Store under "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". G11 states: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion". The article has been userfied at User:Piotrus/Beautiful Store, and I think it is clear it does not fall under G11. I asked Deb for it to be restored, he refused, citing poor now poor grammar (discussion can be reviewed at User_talk:Piotrus#Deleted_AGAIN_how_should_we_do.3F and User_talk:Deb#Beautiful_Store_deletion. I do not dispute that the article suffers from poor (even very poor...) grammar, this, however, is not a criteria for speedy deletion (articles with poor grammar should simply be tagged wit {{Cleanup-english}}/{{Grammar}}). I told Deb he is welcome to prod or AfD it, if he still thinks the grammar is so bad as to warrant a deletion, but he still refuses to restore an article. I am therefore asking for 1) it to be restored due to improper use of speedy (with no prejudice for an AfD), and 2) for Deb actions to be reviewed. I am sure he acted in good faith, but I think he misunderstands when to use speedy (this is clearly not a G11, and grammar is not a speedy criteria), and needs to be cautioned (in a good faithed, friendly manner) to be more careful with the deletion tool. PS. Disclaimer: the user who created the article is a student in a course I am an instructor/ambassador for. PPS. Deb will be notified of this AN thread in a second. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the article I would have probably have deleted it too, it is very promtional, phrases like "Other than repairing the donated stuffs and reselling business, such as a beautiful Saturday, a beautiful apartment, sharing schools, shops moving companies or government agencies are campaigning to spread the culture of sharing and re-us" are blatant spam - The only way I could see it being a decent article is if it was started again from scratch - as the courses instructor it is your responsibility to ensure these students are aware of the standards we expect. If action is taken here it should be that you educate GaHee and his fellow students about how to properly add to Wikipedia--Jac16888 Talk 11:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Do you even know what spam stands for? If you think some sentences are overly promotional (and I disagree on describing the one above as such), they can be simply deleted, leaving the rest of the content in the article. And the article clearly has some usable content, explaining the readers what this NGO does. For the record, this Korean NGO is similar to Oxfam. Looking at Oxfam lead, I see the following unreferenced text "In all Oxfam’s actions, the ultimate goal is to enable people to exercise their rights and manage their own lives. Oxfam works directly with communities and seeks to influence the powerful, to ensure that poor people can improve their lives and livelihoods and have a say in decisions that affect them. Each organization (Affiliate) works together internationally to achieve a greater impact through collective efforts." This seems about as promotional and non-neutral as the stuff in the deleted article - are you going to delete Oxfam now? :) Of course, nobody is going to delete Oxfam. Perhaps it needs to be tagged with {{Advert}} (which, btw, does not redirect to WP:SPEEDY, and if anyone would try to speedy articles in Category:Articles with a promotional tone it would be a quick path to being stripped of admin powers...). In both articles perhaps a few sentences simply need to go (promotional speak...), but speedy deleting an article about a notable organization is way to much - for anything, but an abuse of admin tools by someone who doesn't want to be bothered with a proper procedure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Otherstuff? The article is clearly and blatantly written from a promotional pov, if you educated its creator in how to edit Wikipedia then you did not do your job properly--Jac16888 Talk 11:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I, too, would have deleted this. The tone is fundamentally promotional and this article needs to be re-written completely. Articles that describe the subject's "mission" in the opening paragraph are practically never worth keeping. Basalisk inspect damageberate 11:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Otherstuff is irrelevant here, as Oxfam page does not even carry promotional warning template, thus the cited example is for an acceptable content. Second, the primary problem is that G11 does not allow deletion of pages suffering from promotional tone; while I increasingly feel I am talking to the wall here, {{Advert}} and Category:Articles with a promotional tone are not candidates for speedy. G11 states, to quote it again, that it allows for deletion of pages that "that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." The BS article was not "exclusively promotional", thus while quite possibly a valid target for being tagged with {{Advert}}, it is not a valid target for speedy deletion. Let's also take a look at {{Template:Db-g11}}. It states that the target article in its "current form serves only to promote an entity, person or product". Well, this article was doing more then just promoting it, it was informing about it (for example the first lead sentence is quite clear and non-promotional "Beautiful Store(아름다운 가게) was launched in 2002 as an example to the Oxfam shop, is a not-for-profit organizations and social enterprises."). To quote further from G11 template: "Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {{advert}} tag to alert others to do so.". And again, this article has many parts that are clearly non-promotional, and would remain a valid stub/start class article even after removing problematic sentences. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Also, since you're concerned about "proper procedure", the correct process for what you're trying to do would have been to take it to deletion review, and then if there are still concerns come here and ask for a review of the administrative actions taken. Basalisk inspect damageberate 11:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, will head to DRV. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Note:Text of the article in question can now be found at User:GaHee Park/sandbox.Deb (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That should never have been in articlespace. That should have remained a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT until it was ready-to-go, which will take a lot of work. Bad judgement and horrible expectation-setting by anyone who encouraged (now discouraged) this new editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not a good idea for an admin to CSD borderline articles; CSD should be a two editor process -- an editor to apply a CSD tag and then a separate editor with sysop bit to evaluate and confirm / deny the CSD. Obviously vandalism / trolling articles should be deleted on sight, but this article is just really badly written as opposed to being obviously promotional. Difficult for me to assess as the references appear to be in Korean. NE Ent 12:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The only thing wrong with that article is its grammar. Once it's been written to a pass-class level of English, it should be restored.--Launchballer 12:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that the discussion about undeleting the article is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 21. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

With a bit of searching I've found a few English links that might be of some use...