Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive251

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

Noticeboard archives


Request to salt : Kopex[edit]

Recently, Articles for creation has had a flood of articles about a company called "Kopex", such as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kopex, Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Kopex, or associated sandboxes, all created by Jackisback1912 (talk · contribs) or Grzegorz kopex (talk · contribs), and all of which have been fairly promptly speedy deleted via WP:CSD#G12 as being an obvious copyright infringement, only for the CSD tag to be removed, or the article to be re-created. A recent discussion here suggested blocking the editors, but I feel salting the title (and associated variations) would be a less draconian measure than tossing them out without so much of a howd'ya do. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Sounds sensible to me, but I would urge an explanatory edit summary. We sometimes salt a title when we do not think there ever should be an article with that name, but that isn't the case here. There is a real company by that name, and it may well be notable. The decision to salt is simply to avoid having to keep deleting, but if someone wants to create a legitimate article, a decent edit summary would clarify to an admin that such a title should be allowed, if the article isn't a copyvio.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Support I agree with Sphilbrick wholeheartedly. Could we perhaps insert something into the title blacklist to prevent it? I'm imagining the blacklist preventing the creation of pages with "Kopex" either as the entire title or as a separate word as part of the title, but not in such a way that something like "Alkopexian" would be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment. Anyone notice that the company is Kopex, the site "infringed" is,17,activity.html , and the poster is Grzegorz kopex? It is worth considering that this may not be a copyvio (though COI is an issue) and there may simply be a language barrier (for example, he may not realize his talk page exists ... certainly having one little red 1 by a tab is not going to help people in that position!). It looks like he exists (with the same interest : [1]) on pl.wikipedia - maybe there's a way to break through to him that way? [2] Wnt (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I've asked for help from Piotrus; his cradlespeech is Polish, but you'd think he was a native English speaker by the quality of his writing. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
(@Nyttend) Thanks :) I can certainly leave them a note in Polish, but can you tell me clearly which editors should I leave the note, and what about? (I am currently on holidays and have limited net access making it difficult for me to investigate it by myself). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
The editor is [3] and his article in the .pl version is [4]. You might try reaching him at his talk page; also there might be somewhere in the pl.wikipedia to discuss editing about a company by someone associated with it and whether you could get some third parties involved; mostly though, I'm thinking they're in a better position to clear the copyrighted content at the company and make further communication through that way... Wnt (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
(@Wnt) Pl article he created on that topic (nota bene, notable) is also a copyvio. I'll report it to pl:WP:NPA (pl copyvio) and let them handle it further. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I have trouble with this editor[edit]

User:Iwantfreebook start insult me in Mecha article's edit summary. Well, I made slight mistake for not point him out that there is already seperate section for anime and manga in that article (admit, I actually forgot that). Still, I'm pretty sure that isn't reason you can call fellow editor moron or accuse one for being racist. I tried talk to him, he remove my message and pretty much say (in the article's edit summary) he don't want any discussion. L-Zwei (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

First offense for personal attacks, so I've warned him without taking further action. L-Zwei, feel free to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. If Iwantfreebook wants his opinion to be taken into account, he will need to participate.—Kww(talk) 04:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the place to discuss content is on talk pages, not in editwarring edit summaries. But discussion of editor conduct goes on that editor's user talk page. Apteva (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox person[edit]

I've asked User:Kww to kindly revert his good-faith change at {{Infobox person}}, made in response to an edit request, as there is no consensus for it (see Template talk:Infobox person, where most of the support !votes are pasted in from a single project's talk page). However, it seems that we're in different timezones and he won't be active for a while Could another admin oblige, please, to allow further discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted temporarily. I'll reevaluate the discussion in a few days.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I repeat my suggestion that those behind the proposal should advertise it more widely; preferably with an RfC and WP:CENT notice. As things stand, it's been canvassed (albeit in good faith) to one project in particular. 19:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
I agree with Andy that the original removal had process issues—it is a fairly big deal and deserved more communication, but now that the communication has occurred, and parties are weighing in, a consensus is forming.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Prod backlog[edit]

CAT:PROD is backed up to July 4. Can we please get to deleting? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I usually monitor WP:EXPROD, but for some reason they're not showing? :) ·Salvidrim!·  19:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
It has lately tended to be erratic. I check using WP:PRODSUM. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

AIV & UAA bot is logged out[edit]

It seems that User:HBC AIV helperbot5 & User:HBC AIV helperbot7 running on toolserver is logged out. For reference Special:Contributions/ --Glaisher [talk] 09:25, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I left a note to the op, @JamesR:. :) ·Salvidrim!·  16:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Can't remember: are we supposed to softblock IPs when this happens, since they're good examples of malfunctioning bots, or are we supposed to leave them alone, since they're performing helpful clerking duties? Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
As a test, my recollection is block, so that we have a log of what they are doing. Most bot activities can wait. What did we do before there were bots? Apteva (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
It appears to be logged out again. --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A bad move[edit]

Sorted out for the time being. :) ·Salvidrim!·  22:29, 15 July 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.

User:Bhny has moved Hentai to Hentai (word) without any move discussion taking place, while editors casn be WP:BOLD there has been a bit of feedback at Talk:Hentai (word)#Hentai (word) against the move. This is not a incident but a request for a move back as the history appears to have been split somehow (I cant move Hentai's history back as the article already is present as a disamb page?) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I've moved everything back to Hentai because the move was (obviously) not uncontroversial and move-protected the page for 2 weeks, which should grant more than enough time to form consensus on a move request­. :) ·Salvidrim!·  22:29, 15 July 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.

Urgent request for closure[edit]

Resolved: Gone and salted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hail admins! Could someone please put a stop to this? Consensus is obvious and the AFD has been going since 9 July. One COI contributor has already been blocked and another had his paid editing COI exposed today and has since taken his dead-horse-flogging to all new heights. The AFD is now at 205,000+ bytes (yes, two hundred and five thousand). If someone wants to throw in a WP:NOTHERE block for the paid editor, that would obviously save us an ANI thread too (but there's a few of us happy to take care of that separately). Thanks, Stalwart111 09:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks Chris. I undid Basalisk's second close, though I appreciated the very prompt response. My thanks to you both! Stalwart111 10:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the community free to restrict an admin's use of some but not all admin tools?[edit]

Thanks all. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:04, 17 July 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.

  1. Is the community free to restrict an admin's use of some but not all admin tools?
  2. If so, how? May this be done using the same process by which we typically decide user restrictions such as topic-bans, interaction bans, etc. (mostly by discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI, sometimes accompanied by an RFC) or does the community need to establish a new process for this, or must constraining an admin's use of specific admin tools be left to ArbCom?

Some arbitrators have partially addressed these questions, but I'd like to hear views from others, and perhaps more from the below-quoted arbs too, if they wish.

Here Newyorkbrad says, "The Arbitration Committee has the authority, for good cause, to desysop an administrator. I can imagine circumstances in which an administrator has displayed poor judgment in one area, e.g. blocking, but is doing a good job elsewhere, such that I would prefer to restrict his or her use of blocking rather than to desysop outright. The fact that I don't recall a case where this was done suggests this is not a common scenario, but I don't see any reason to say a priori that it's not a remedy that could be voted where warranted."

Here Salvio Giuliano says, "...the community can restrict and sanction editors; it cannot, however, desysop administrators. This is an exception to the rule and, therefore, should be strictly construed. For that, in my opinion, the community may ban a sysop from using part of his toolset, provided this is not a way to surreptitiously desysop him – which means that a ban from using the "undelete" button is OK, but a ban from (un)deleting, (un)blocking and (un)protecting would not be acceptable. As it happens, it's something that has to be determined on a case-by-case basis."

Here Risker says, " I suggest that the community consider two courses of action: whether to initiate a discussion specifically about [an admin] being restricted from editing any protected templates or starting a request for arbitration/desysop at the appropriate page."

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am of the opinion (and have said this long before I joined ArbCom) that the "community" (more accurately, a set of people who show up at ANI) does not have the authority to restrict the use of administrator tools involuntarily. NW (Talk) 14:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
On what is that based? What policy or WMF directive says that our freedom to restrain the behaviour of users extends only to editors; that admin behaviour may not be constrained by the community using the same processes that are adequate to block and ban editors? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I should say that this is my impression of current unwritten policy. We've been a project with administrators for 11-12 years now, and in that time, I do not think we have allowed an RFA to pass with restrictions, nor has any proposal to restrict an administrator from using their admin tools ever formally passed. That says something to me, that for better or for worse we have chosen to view the sysop toolset as one set that cannot be splintered apart by individual decisions of whichever dramaboarders happen to show up. You'll notice that even individual editors are very rarely sanctioned on enwiki because of ANI discussions, or if it is, it's almost always an editor who has previously been blocked or banned. Any action taken is often actually one administrator going ahead and then the noticeboards review the matter, not that the noticeboard comes to a conclusion and an admin implements it. This isn't the greatest argument in the world, I know. But I see some merit in the current system, as it allows an admin to take action that may or may not be unanimously supported without worrying about being pilloried (even worse than they already can be) by the editors who really hate him or her showing up (the same reason why standard admin recall procedures don't work that well). NW (Talk) 15:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be in the subsection below, then? ;-) I mean, just because we haven't done something before doesn't mean we can't. Or is it mandated by the WMF or the five pillars or somewhere else in policy that we must do things the way we always have. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Should we?[edit]

No, I don't think so - if they cannot be trusted with one tool then they should not be trusted with any. That's not to say an admin doing X should be immediately de-sysopped, but they should be trained and put through probation or something until they are back to scratch, and if still no good then we need to consider full de-sysopping. GiantSnowman 13:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I asked "May we?" So I've created a subsection for your answer to the question, "Should we?"
The present RfA process is incapable of thoroughly assessing in advance a candidate's competency in all domains of tool use, so it is inevitable that a number (most?) will turn out to be excellent and valuable in many areas of tool use, but less competent in others. Why should the community have to desysop an admin who's performing fine in most areas, just because they're having problems in one area? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
There's a vital difference between:
an admin not being very good at X, recognising that fact, and so choosing to not use any tools in that particular area.
an admin not being very good at X, not recognising that fact, and consequently mis-using/abusing the tools.
Which one of these scenarios is your hypothetical situation talking about? GiantSnowman 13:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Just the latter. Jimbo acknowledged his blocking of Bishonen was inappropriate and offered to put the block button aside for a year, and Hex agreed to do the same after the community made it clear he needed to rethink his use of the block button; but in cases where an admin doesn't recognise a problem, we may choose between restricting their use and a full desysop. See Risker pointing out those two options in the above quote. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
As I've repeatedly said, in general, I believe that when a plurality of remedies are all suitable to stop the disruption an editor is causing, only the least onerous one should be imposed, which means that when an admin is acting inappropriately only in a particular area or with a particular tool, there is nothing preventing the community from restricting him. I understand the objection that an admin who's not trusted to do x should not be trusted to be an admin tout court, but I disagree (the best solution would be to unbundle the sysop toolset, but, unfortunately, that won't happen any time soon): we have "technical" admins who do great things and are sorely needed and we also have admins who are great at doing repetitive tasks but who lack the people's skills required to deal with a person who is being troublesome but is neither a vandal nor another kind of malicious editor – and I don't see any reason why we should deprive ourselves of the good these admins can do to the encyclopaedia... Regarding the procedure to actually impose a sanction, I'd say that the current one governing sanctions on editors is adequate and see no reason to create a new process... Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The community does have this power. I think it should be one of those things that a bureaucrat is required to judge consensus on, much like an RFA. The problem I have with this request is being aware of the context: Anthonyhcole has repeatedly indicated that he wants to restrict the blocking capability of a group of admins whose blocks he feels are disrespectful or insensitive to the plight of the "content creators", and I've been specifically identified as one of the admins he wishes to apply this new-found power to. I know Coren, Sandstein, and Fram are also on his hit-list. It would seem that the basic intent is a backdoor method of making admins afraid to make unpopular, but necessary, blocks. This makes me extremely leery of just having the discussions take place on ANI and having any admin that feels like he has found a rough consensus imposing the sanctions.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Kww, I understand your concern. I hereby undertake never to initiate or support an attempt to restrict your Coren's, Sandstein's or Fram's use of specific admin tools. This isn't about you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Bureaucrat closing seems reasonable to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding my motives: I believe that if the community begins taking responsibility for guiding and modifying the behaviour of our admins in this way, to some degree the ugliness of RfA and the palpable fracture between the "admin corps" and "editors" will be ameliorated. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't actually believe that particular "palpable fracture" exists. We have a small but vocal group that believes that good content contributions should forgive all sins, and there is a fracture between them and the rest of the community.—Kww(talk) 17:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I know you don't see it, but there is a problem with the relationship between the editing and policing communities. If, as you say, a small group is complaining loudly about your (collective) behaviour - that's a problem, and community imposed behaviour modification on those admins who are a problem (but don't recognise it) will help. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Because, of course, all the editors involved are blameless ... —Kww(talk) 17:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
No. Of course not. That's why we need you. But you're not all blameless, either. And when an admin has a problem in one narrow area, we need more nuanced options than just de-sysop or do nothing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not? We can siteban people and topic ban them, and that could include a community decision of "you will be subjected to an indefinite block if you don't stop using tool X". Admins are people too, and that means that they should be subject to the same standards as other people. Not sure that it's a good idea in this case, but saying "no we can't do that" is going too far. 2001:18E8:2:1020:971:A37B:CBDE:B32F (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not know whether "the community has this power". As it has never been exercised, I do not think it should be assumed that it has. To inaugurate it would require at least consensus at a CENT-advertised RFC, and a clear definition of what would be needed - e.g., discussion to remain open for a set minimum time, bureaucrat required to close. I would be against it, for two reasons:
  • Theoretical: this is the case of "an admin not being very good at X, not recognising that fact, and consequently mis-using/abusing the tools." If, after the sort of discussion envisaged, the admin still will not accept that there is a problem, that to me would cast enough doubt on his judgement to make me unwilling to leave him with the other tools.
  • Practical: the existing problem described in WP:Unblockable would become worse if any block of a popular user brought all his friends to ANI demanding a vote on whether the blocking admin should be deprived of the block button.
It is all very well Anthonyhcole promising that he will not use this against Fram Kww and the other three; others would not be bound by that promise, and a campaign to chip away at the limited number of admins willing to make difficult but necessary blocks would not be good for the project. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Salvio addressed your first point, above. Regarding your assumption that a mob of buddies that disapproves of one block will be able to deprive an admin of the block button, that strikes me as suspect. What I can foresee is a large number of editors getting sufficiently fed-up with a cowboy who too often blocks when equally or more effective but less-draconian options are available, and telling him/her to do something else for a while.
(For the record, I'm reassessing Fram in light of his recent good calls regarding Eric and Kiefer.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Administrators are treated differently from other users in one respect: we do not have a community desysop process. Repeated attempts to introduce one have failed, with two common reasons being that it could be easily abused by those with grudges and that it would deter admins from performing potentially controversial admin actions. Both problems would also apply to a process for restricting an admin's use of a particular tool. I wouldn't have a problem if ArbCom (which does have the authority to desysop) were to issue a remedy preventing an admin from using the block button. Hut 8.5 18:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I believe this is the crux of the question. We do not have a community desysop process (but should have) and if we did have one, it should be something along the lines of an "inverse RfA", and not based on an AN/I model. Until we have such a process, and as long as the powers wielded by an admin remain bundled, the community cannot, it seems to me, effectively unbundle them by forbidding use of specific powers. Perhaps it should be able to, but I don't believe it now has that capability. The community can, of course, use moral suasion to convince an admin to lay aside use of one of those powers for a time (per the examples above), but it cannot force an admin not to have that power. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
We cannot take the power from them - only the WMF via ArbCom has that gift - but we can force an admin not to use a power, or enforce restricted use. For instance, if an admin is habitually having their decorum-enforcement blocks overturned by the community, we could allow that admin to block only obvious vandals and confirmed socks. We can do whatever we believe is best for our mission - unless it's proscribed by the WMF. If you can explain why I'm wrong on that point, please do so in the first section of this thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
It is impossible to "force" someone to do something unless you have the means to back up the order. The community does not have that means in regards to admins, therefore any attempt to "force" an admin not to use one of their abilities is doomed to failure, and is ultimately an exercise in drama, not in regulating the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
If persuasion fails to stop an admin from misusing a tool, we can make them stop by threatening to block them or actually blocking them, just as we make editors respect a restriction with the threat of a block. Kww did it briefly a day or two ago. The question is, should we do that outside a perceived emergency? Should we impose longer restrictions for a perceived intractable problem via a community discussion and/or RfC, without review or endorsement by ArbCom? I've come round to the view that ArbCom review is necessary. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I've heard this assertion before from admins. In fact, it won't be known for sure if those with grudges will be able to abuse this process until we start using the process. Personally, I think it's highly unlikely. I think a well-moderated AN or ANI discussion is a pretty sound process, and as with any user behaviour discussion, we'll be looking for a pattern of behaviour, not just one or two reasonable errors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Please point me towards this mythical "well-moderated AN or ANI discussion" ;) NW (Talk) 19:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I beg to differ. A discussion on one of these noticeboards surrounding a controversial admin action tends to devolve into a mess. You don't think this proposal will be used by those with grudges? This proposal itself was inspired by a grudge surrounding a block discussed further up this page. People sympathetic to that editor want to be able to punish the admin concerned. Giving them the power to do so isn't going to improve that situation. Sure, we won't know for sure if the procedure will be used in that way unless we enable it, but that's like saying you don't know for sure if shooting yourself in the foot will hurt unless you try it. Hut 8.5 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
NW, I should have said "well-behaved". AN discussions are a far more civilised affair than they were just a year ago; and they can be even more controlled and focussed if you, the habitues, decided to exercise more self-control, as you did twelve months ago. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Hut 8.5, AN/ANI discussions sometimes become a mess, but most often they just fizzle into a frustrated deadlock - for good reason: we're not willing to deprive ourselves of an otherwise good admin due to a shortcoming in one limited area. By the way, I don't see this step being taken very often. But we can do it, so we should when it's more appropriate than doing nothing or de-sysopping. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The reason ANI discussions frequently end up that way is because they are essentially unmoderated interactions between large numbers of editors with strongly held opposing views. In the case of the unblockables problem mentioned above the problem is that such editors have a number of sympathisers who are prepared to agitate or make excuses on their behalf. I don't anticipate that the number of admins subject to such restrictions will be very large either, but that doesn't really help the situation, because the mere threat of such a sanction will be enough to deter admins from performing controversial admin actions, and because the number of proposed restrictions will be much larger than the number of enacted restrictions (controversial admin actions will have supporters as well as opponents). Hut 8.5 10:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I've addressed this below where I suggest the admin may appeal to ArbCom, who may lift or impose whatever restrictions they deem appropriate. Regarding "This proposal itself was inspired by a grudge surrounding a block discussed further up this page," I don't know what you're referring to there. I've been thinking out loud about this at WT:BLOCK, WT:AC/N and elsewhere with Kww, Newyorkbrad and others for six months. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Making people take these cases to ArbCom in the first place will largely prevent grudge actions, allowing an appeal to ArbCom afterwards won't. (Note this argument hasn't worked for community desysop proposals.) Regarding the other issue, you've evidently forgotten this thread from earlier this week, where you started talking about this proposal in a discussion about that very block. The reason this proposal is getting such attention now is because of that block. Hut 8.5 06:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I still don't know what you're talking about. Are you saying I'm bearing a grudge that motivates this proposal? If that's what you mean, I'd prefer that you strike the claim. But I'm not sure that's what you're saying. Please clarify. I was prompted to start this thread by a comment from Risker, quoted at the top of this thread, which has nothing to do with Eric's block or grudges. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying that you personally are motivated by a grudge. I am saying that this idea is attracting interest at the moment because of the block of Eric, and I am confidently predicting that people with grudges surrounding Eric would try to use this process to further them. Hut 8.5 15:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for clarifying. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • If the community were not allowed to sanction an admin in any way, including a topic ban (via using the tools or not using the tools) then we will have successfully created "supereditors" that are above policy. I find this offensive. While I don't expect sanctions to be common, to say that there are no remedies available is already inaccurate as we've seen admin block admin without getting santioned themselves. Whether this line is, however, is fuzzy. The community can't desysop admin, because policy specifically states this power is given to Arb only, but other remedies do not seem to be the exclusive domain of Arb, per policy. That said, the community is not likely to be kind to people who file trivial requests for sanctions either, nor should it be. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Dennis: The community can certainly sanction an admin in many way: admins can be topic banned, for instance, they can have interaction bans placed against then, their editing can be restricted in any way conceivable except in regard to any of the bundle of abilities which comes as part of the admin package. To remove one of those capabilities is to create a "sub-admin" status, which is not in the purview of the community. Only ArbCom & Jimbo have the explicit power to desysop, and I would say that that power includes the abiliy to limit an admin's capabilities. Otherwise the community could (in theory) skirt that exclusivity by removing all of an admin's power except one trivial one, say, the power to view deleted files, on the technicality that having left the admin with one small part of the bundle, the community did not actually "desysop" anyone -- whereas the reality is that that admin will have been effectively defanged.

      No, as long as the bundle remains unitary, admins get them when a bureaucrat certifies a successful RfA, and loses them when they either give them up or they get desysoped by ArbCom. Once there's a community-based desysoping process in place, things will be different, but that's the way the system in now set up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

      • You haven't shown any policy that supports this. I can see why we are losing good admin every day. Dennis Brown |  | WER 10:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Dennis: It's a logical conclusion from ArbCom's explicit remit to desysop, which has not been extended to the community. Removing part of an admin's powers is a "mini-desysoping" which is not within the community's purview. At the this time, the creation of an admin is done by community consensus, certified by a bureaucrat, and desysoping is done by ArbCom. The policing of an admin as an editor is done by the community, but the policing of an admin as an admin can only be done by the entity which has the capability of backing up its policing with the force of policy, and that is ArbCom. If the comunity was to decide it had the authority to reduce an admin's powers, the case would immediately go to ArbCom, which is under no compunction to confirm the community's decision - they would decide the case on its merits. This being the case, it makes more sense to simply bring the case to ArbCom without the community step in between, since any decision the community makes is entirely toothless without ArbCom's support.

          BTW, I'm honestly confused by your final comment: in what what way does the community's inability to restrict specific parts of an admin's capabilities contribute to "losing good admins every day"? I share your distress at the recent loss of several high-quality admins, but I'm not seeing the connection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  • The community can restrict an admin's use of an admin tool, and block or ban them if the admin defies the community. Yes, the admin can appeal against a long-term restriction to ArbCom. No, the community process is not therefore a waste of time because cases with high community support, including support from respected peers, will hopefully not be appealed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You assert that the community has this power, but you've shown no policy basis for this assertion, whereas I have shown a policy rationale for it not having this power - and hoping that such a community action wouldn't immediately go to ArbCom is mothing more than wishful thinking - it would probably go there even before the discussion had concluded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Some would go immediately to ArbCom, but what's wrong with that? ArbCom expects the community to carefully examine issues before they are taken to ArbCom, and the consensus from an AN discussion would tell ArbCom what the desired outcome from that discussion was.

    There is no policy supporting your claim that the community may not do this. You have an argument though; viz.: "Otherwise the community could (in theory) skirt [ArbCom's exclusive right to desysop] by removing all of an admin's power except one trivial one, say, the power to view deleted files, on the technicality that having left the admin with one small part of the bundle, the community did not actually "desysop" anyone -- whereas the reality is that that admin will have been effectively defanged." Salvio explicitly addressed that in the quote at the top of this thread. De facto desysop wouldn't be tolerated by anyone, especially the admin concerned. A case approaching that degree of restriction would go to ArbCom before any resolution is reached at AN.

    Nothing in policy and no directive from WMF prevents us from doing this, and it would give the community (including other admins - many of whom give up adminning for the want of a simple community-based remedy such as this) a direct means of modifying the behaviour of an admin in one or two areas, without necessarily having to trouble ArbCom. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Anthony, my feeling is that you want this so badly that you are not taking proper notice of the arguments that have been presented against your position. As you implicitly admit, you have no policy to support your position, and you're ignoring the rather obvious argument that the only entity which had explicitly been given the task of policing admin behavior (as oppose to the editorial behavior of admins) is ArbCom, and since ArbCom was given the task of policing admins, and the community was not, the community cannot usurp what is in ArbCom's purview simply because it wants to. If you want this that badly, you'll need to change policy to create a community-based desysoping process, and you can't do that through an AN thread. Once the community has the capability of desysoping (which it does not now have, but should), then restricting admin's admin-related behavior is trivial, because it has behind it the threat of desysoping. Until that change, this proposal will amount to nothing, especially considering that there's no consensus even here for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Cheers. It's a little early for assessing consensus.
I certainly don't want this so badly that I'll ignore good argument. Earlier in this discussion I readily conceded admin restraint would be better left to ArbCom, when that seemed to be where the better argument was pointing. I again modified my view when it occurred to me that the existing right to request ArbCom scrutiny would provide enough protection against grudge actions. So, I'm more than willing to be persuaded by good argument, and I assure you I'm reading very carefully. And the "this" that I want isn't any specific process, just a more functional society here.
We don't need a policy or a WMF directive telling us we can constrain admin behaviour. You've got it the wrong way round. If you want to prevent the community from doing that, you need to find a policy or WMF directive telling us we can't. If you can't do that but still want to prevent this from happening, argue convincingly that we shouldn't. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not wrong when I say that "Wikipedia belongs to the community", but at the same time there is a particular hierarchy here (not in terms of importance but in terms of proven credibility and policies) and involving the community in this scenario would mean breaking that hierarchy and as such the pyramid with the strong base of credibility. Would you give a rollback or reviewer right to a newbie with 5 edits? why would you want to give the right to judge admin actions to any one else other than Arbcom? I have seen some ANI discussions which end up one admin suggesting other admin to not edit a certain article or to drop the stick while interacting with a certain user, these remain suggestions from an admin as given to another editor. For admin tools involving the general community through arbcom should be enough and admins should have enough common sense to not use tools in areas which they don't feel they have expertise in. If not then the community in the first place has not done a good job in RFA either so how do you trust them here?  A m i t  ❤  04:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that where we (currently and traditionally) appoint admins based on our trust that they will not abuse any of their tools or judgement, if they fail in any one of these tasks, then that trust has been violated. I naturally believe that no sanctions should be applied without warnings, and that desysoping from the use of all tools rather than a ban from certain sysop areas should be the way to go if there is no improvement, but only as the last resort. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Individual users turning up on ANI and other noticeboards contribute to the process of the project, however they are not entirely representative of the community. The Arbitration Committee is the only proper entity that should have the mandate to desysop administrators or alternatively place partial restrictions on the use of their tools. Accusations made against administrators should be taken seriously when there is prima facie evidence of abuse. Only when this evidence is properly contextualized and analyzed by elected arbitrators, who are also among the most experienced users on the project, can we expect to have a semblance of propriety towards the entire process. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Well put, Nick. Leaving such actions to AN discussion would be less bureaucratic and more efficient in most cases, and not add to the AC's work load, which is why I've been considering it. Above, Kww suggested discussions about restricting an admin's tool use should be closed by a bureaucrat, to protect against self-selection by a biased closer. But this would only increase the likelihood of an honest assessment of consensus.
Can the consensus view of whoever turns up at AN be relied on, though? I've been persuaded by your succinct argument, on top of those put above, that AN is too prone to mob rule and chance, and for that reason we should refer such cases to the AC for at least ratification. That is, though the community could take this on (and if/when we instigate a robust and reliable de-sysop process we may take this on), for now, we should leave the decision to the Arbitration Committee.
I'm very concerned not to add an undue burden to the AC, though, so I hope any such cases will be very well prepared before such a request is made. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. There are even admins that have been justly and repeatedly blocked after becoming admins. I think that is clear evidence that admins are not immune to sanctions from other editors and/or by consensus. I don't see how restricting only part of their activity with such sanctions would be a problem. In fact, it would be obviously beneficial. If someone does not have enough clue to participate well in some area of this vast project, and they cannot reign in themselves, it's a good cause for the community to do that, with ArbCom as the last step, not the first. Admin actions also span a large domain. Topic-banning an admin is a good way of retaining their useful contributions while preventing the problematic ones; that applies to normal editorial contributions and to admin actions equally well. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Hopefully, if a good case is made at AN, and enough of their peers urge them to, an admin with intractable problems in a limited area will agree to restricting their tool use accordingly. If they don't agree, then based on all of the arguments above I don't think we should enforce the restrictions with the threat of a block or community ban. If the admin won't voluntarily modify their tool use in line with consensus, ArbCom can be asked to look at it. A number of Arbs above have indicated a readiness to consider the option of specific admin-tool restrictions, where appropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting reading, Thanks Anthony. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Alan. I'm still wavering here. I'm starting to think the community might keep both options open:
  1. Take the case to ArbCom if the consensus is uncertain or suspect or
  2. Impose restrictions if a bureaucrat finds a strong clear consensus; and the restricted admin can immediately appeal to ArbCom - who may lift or impose whatever sanctions they deem appropriate.
I hope the right to appeal to ArbCom addresses the concerns expressed by NW, JohnCD, Hut 8.5 and Nick about grudge actions. I'd appreciate their (and others') thoughts on that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I am still too concerned to support this. The RfC process is better suited for this than AN would be, as it would attract a better cross-section of the community than AN. I don't dispute that the community has the authority to set up a well-managed process to restrict or desysop an administrator; I just am skeptical that AN/ANI has the authority or that a situation would arise that such a fairly-arrived-at consensus would come up that it wouldn't be just as easy for the Arbitration Committee to handle the matter by motion. NW (Talk) 12:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes a situation can be made clear enough in a careful discussion at a noticeboard. This recent case was resolved by the admin agreeing to put aside the block button for a year; but if he hadn't been persuaded by his peers, I think the evidence was clear enough for a reasonably safe community decision to require him to do so. But I would expect an unclear or complicated case at AN involving an admin's behaviour to go to RfC, just as such things do when they involve an editor's behaviour that requires a lot of teasing apart. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
NW, I don't have a problem if Arb decides to take a sanctions discussion that is at WP:AN and moves it to Arb, since Admin issues are obviously something Arb was setup to do, but that shouldn't limit the community from initiating them, nor adjudicating them in cases where Arb isn't involved. I wouldn't support desysoping, but there have been cases where I would support interaction bans, for instance. Arb isn't needed for those cases, and of course, the admin can appeal to Arb or Arb can vacate that decision. I don't see any policy reason for saying that basic problems, even if they involve the bit, can't be dealt with here, at the lowest level. Dennis Brown |  | WER 10:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but interaction bans are fundamentally different from say, preventing an administrator from using page protection. I see your point Anthony that it is possible for a discussion to lead to a fair conclusion, but that to me seems like the exception rather than the norm. I would be far more comfortable with the situation if a special process were set up that requires more than the participation of ANI regulars and those who have a particular animus towards this particular administrator (past discussions). NW (Talk) 15:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Only the clear "snow" cases would end with a community-imposed sanction out of an AN discussion. Complicated cases will spin off to an RfC/U (and then back to AN or on to ArbCom), and disputed cases will end up at ArbCom. Community-imposed restrictions will only work where all concerned think it is appropriate. So, yes, it would only be effective in those exceptional cases.
I don't think there is much to worry about here. But I concede, we really won't know until someone tries it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes. All editors are subject to community restrictions - topic bans, interaction bans, process bans - on activities that they are technically able to do. An admin simply has permissions that increases their technical permission, but all behaviour is still subject to restriction by community consensus. If the community decides that an admin needs to stay away from a particular process, but should retain other administrative permissions, then that's what should happen. If they violate that ban, their actions should be reverted ala WP:CSD-G5, and be subject to escalating blocks. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 22:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No. I think that admins should be responsible in responding to friendly suggestions that they were not good at one thing or another and would be best to avoid those areas for now. There are a lot of tools in the admin toolkit, and I do not think it wise to try to specifically separate them. If you are responsible in having the toolkit you are responsible to recognizing your own strengths and weaknesses as well. If not, the best option is desysop. Apteva (talk) 06:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've invited input to this discussion at the village pump and WT:RFA. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes it is easy to say that any admin who cannot be trusted with one tool should not be trusted with any of them. In fact, I don't disagree with that statement. However, it creates a problem because it seems to communicate that problematic admins must be either ignored or desysopped. There has to be some middle ground, especially because desysopping is not easy to do. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • In principle, yes; saying "we trust you to do anything except X" can be implemented whether X is unilateral page-moves, writing about Palestine, or deleting pages. There is no technical means for doing so, but there is no technical means to implement almost any other kind of restriction. In practice, though, I cannot imagine many circumstances in which something had got to arbcom without there being an unpleasant enough situation that the safer course of action was to desysop... Andrew Gray (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken, involved in this discussion with a clear bias toward the question, having made more posts to the thread than anyone bit me, the OP, thought it was appropriate for him to close this discussion, and leave his own thoroughly biased closing statement. I was not proposing a policy change, as his self-serving closing statement asserted. Since the answer to my main question (may we?) is clear, I agree that this thread can now be closed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, here is the "biased and self-serving" closing statement, which no one but the Anthonyhcole seemed unhappy with:

NAC: Even though I have commented in this thread, I am closing it because (1) There is no admin action being requested; the proposal would have been better presented on WP:VPP rather then here; and (2) Despite the OP's opinion that "it's a little early for judging consensus", it's clear that the proposal has not gained any traction, even after the OP advertised it on WP:VPM and WT:RFA.

The OP is advised to present proposals for changes in policy to WP:VPP, since that is not the purpose of WP:AN.

Since this is a NAC, and since I have participated in the discussion, I've no objection if someone -- other than the OP -- wishes to re-open the discussion, but please be aware that it's been almost two days since any new comment has been added. The discussion appears to me to have died. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, I could be wrong, but that seems to me to be a straight-forward, accurate and honest assessment of the situation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:46, 17 July 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.

Government of Gibraltar decides which articles should be written and when[edit]

Most of you are probably aware of the Gibraltarpedia situation (mainly from September 2012). Many assurances were given that no promotion was involved, and that it is just a group of interested editors trying to increase our coverage of notable subjects in and around Gibraltar without any further reasons or motives.

When looking at Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Gap Footpath, I noticed that besides some other problems, discussed at that nomination page and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil's Gap Footpath, there was something more serious going on. In short:

  • In March and April 2013, the footpath is refurbished by the Government of Gibraltar
  • Information panels are placed carrying QRcodes as a link to Wikipedia, even though no article exists on the footpath
  • 7 July 2013, 23.02: Tommy Finlayson, a government employee of Gibraltar (whose Wikipedia article is co-written by Gibmetal77) adds five files concerning the path to Commons, e.g. this one with the QRcodes in question
  • 18 minutes later; Gibmetal77 starts creating the article here
  • On 11 July, he nominates it for DYK, where it gets approved by Prioryman with ao the comment "I don't think there is any credible COI or promotional concern about this article".
  • Because another reviewer expressed concerns about the article, Prioryman raised it at WT:DYK, which I noticed and reacted on. While he had no problems with my participation in a previous GobraltarPedia DYK review (Template:Did you know nominations/Fortifications of Gibraltar), he now reacts quite differently at WT:DYK#Third Fourth opinion requested: "[...]given your history of relentless opposition to Gibraltar-related DYKs – which comes through in your comments on the review – I don't think you're the best person to review this nomination." (which is rather ironic coming from Prioryman: apparently he is neutral enough to review Gibraltarpedia-articles positively, but I'm only welcome when I approve a nomination, not when I reject one).
  • When I raised my concerns about the timeline given above, and the apparent issue that it is the Government of Gibraltar (or the Board of Tourism) which decides which roads and footpaths of Gibraltar should get articles, at the AfD, Prioryman decided that instead of addressing the issue, the more prodictive solution would be to use personal attacks: "How about you stop lying, Fram?".

Can some people take a look at both the timeline and possible COI and promotion issues, and the personal attacks please? Fram (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  • AFD in question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but it was included in the third sentence of my statement (the one starting with "when looking at"). Fram (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Oh, I missed that. Strucken. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I've found this discussion because I'm currently watchlisting Prioryman's talk page because of matters unrelated to this discussion. I'm unaware of the previous discussions involving Gibraltar. On that basis:

  • You make a reasonable case that Gibmetal77 has been acting in concert with whoever is responsible for this footpath to create the article. It's not immediately clear to me, however, why you think that this might be in violation of WP:COI or other conduct rules, or why it warrants a discussion among administrators here.
  • The incivility by Prioryman is problematic, but regretfully nothing unusual by Wikipedia's current standards. As an isolated incident it is probably not actionable under current practices.
  • I'm puzzled that articles about obscure footpaths can generate such controversy, and recommend all involved from withdrawing from what seems at first glance to be a storm in a teacup, or a rather unhelpful continuation of old grudges on both parts.
  • Administrative action related to Gibraltar topics can be requested at WP:AE, per WP:AC/DS.  Sandstein  10:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • wrt your first point; It seems to me that when we have a project that is set up in conjunction with a city's board of tourism to promote that city, and when that city then creates wikilinked QR codes on certain topics that don't even have a Wikipedia article yet (and may not warrant one), and when there are some editors here who are part of that project and are willing to create the requested articles, that COI and the misuse of Wikipedia for promotional goals (whether effective or not) are quite clear. This is a conduct issue, and a continuation (degradation?) of an ongoing issue. It is unclear where I hsould have posted this, none of the village pumps seems really qualified. I was not aware that we have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar and its discretionary sanctions; while I'm not the right person to take any administrative action (like warning other users about these sanctions), it is good to know that it exists and I may take this up there. Fram (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire premise of this thread is a lie - the government of Gibraltar is not telling anyone what articles to write, nor is anyone else. One of the QR codes on the information panels is to my Tunnels of Gibraltar article, which was in preparation at the time the panels were printed. Nobody asked me to write the article - I wrote it as a spin-off of another article and let people know about it, as I wanted some feedback on it. The local heritage and conservation groups responsible for the panels evidently felt it was worth a QRcode. The photographer is a local who has nothing to do with the tourist board, and obviously Gibmetal77 is not a government employee. So the basic premise of this entire thread is wholly false and is yet another sad example of the assumed bad faith and conspiracy theorising that Fram has been perpetrating for the last year. It's bullshit and bunkum, and it should stop now - it's the exact opposite of how a Wikipedian should behave. Prioryman (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This section is not about Tunnels of Gibraltar, but about Devil's Gap Footpath. I have not made any comments about your article or why it was written. Your comments and conclusion are thus not relevant. Whether Finlayson has anything to do with the tourist board or not is not clear, his brother Clive Finlayson used to be Managing Director of the Gibraltar Tourism Agency though. And the reason to renovate the footpath was "to turn the footpath to a nice tourist attraction." This is also the opinion of the government of Gibraltar, the renovation was one of the "improvements to the visitor attractions" This, coupled with the reason Gibraltarpedia was supported by Gibraltar and the timing of this article, are at least sufficient to raise some eyebrows. Fram (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Devil's Gap Footpath is one of a group of four articles that are QRcoded on the information panels (Tunnels of Gibraltar being another). The footpath is in a nature reserve on government-owned land (which I gather most of Gibraltar is) and the panels were, as I understand it, produced by two local non-governmental groups. Your comments clearly indicate that you are relying on nothing more than unverified suspicion. Because the brother of a person of the same name as the photographer (but not the same person!) used to be employed by the tourist board it doesn't mean that the panels have anything to do with the tourist board - that's little more than suspicion by association (can't even call it guilt by association!). Nor, obviously, does it mean that anyone in government "decided" that this article should be written, which is the whole utterly false basis of this thread. Let me put it simply: that claim is an unmitigated lie and you are being disruptive by propagating it. Prioryman (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:NPA. Any alternative and believable explanation for the timeline of this? Do they randomly put up QRcodes for non-existent articles, or is there some interaction with editors here as to what articles will be created? On what basis is the choice then made? What happens when an article with a QRcode gets deleted? How does the collaboration between Gibraltar's official organisations and Gibraltarpedia editors go? Who has paid for these panels? I see a lot of handwaving and accusations from your part, but no actual explanations of what happened. Fram (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Fram, you are approaching this from a conspiracy theory mindset of having a pre-determined conclusion and working backwards from that to cherry-pick any datapoints that you - wrongly - think support your theory. I'm not Gibmetal77 (who's travelling, so can't respond here) so I can't speak for him but my own understanding is that he suggested to the Gibraltar Heritage Trust, a local charity - not the Gibraltar government - that they should add QR codes to the panels they were printing up. The articles linked from the QR codes were Devil's Gap Battery (started by User:Toromedia on 22 September 2012), Devil's Gap Road (Dr. Blofeld, 13 May 2013), Tunnels of Gibraltar (started by myself on 7 June in my user space) and Devil's Gap Footpath (started by Gibmetal77 on 8 July). The panels were printed some time in mid-June, I think. I had already told Gibmetal77 some time previously that I intended to cover the tunnels as a spinoff from my earlier Fortifications of Gibraltar article - needless to say nobody told me to write it. So in other words, the addition of the QR codes to the panels was done at the suggestion of a Wikipedian. Furthermore, three of the four linked articles, by four different editors, had already been started up to 9 months previously, by four different editors. Your claim that User:Toromedia is Tommy Finlayson is also false (it's a different person of the same name). So your claim that "the Government of Gibraltar decides which articles should be written and when" is plainly completely false because the Gibraltar government had nothing whatsoever to do with the articles. You never had any factual basis to suggest that they did and your assumptions are completely incorrect. Prioryman (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I really don't care why you or anyone else wrote any of those other articles. Promising to write articles on non notable subjects so that panels with QR codes for them can be created beforehand is a not much better scenario (and leads to comments in the AFD like "have a redirect so the QRpedia code remains useful"...). It remains clear that you as a a group work together with the government and affiliated organisations to create articles promoting non notable tourist "attractions" and try your hardest to get them on the front page, reviewing and approving each other's work without much concern for basic policies and guidelines, and abusing editors who disagree with these practices. Fram (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Wrong again. I had no involvement in creating the article, nor was I asked to review it - I simply spotted it and reviewed it as the QPQ needed for one of my own nominations. When will you apologise for getting the facts so cataclysmically wrong? Or even acknowledge that your claims were wrong? I'm getting the feeling you don't actually care about factual accuracy. Prioryman (talk) 07:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
"I had no involvement in creating the article" Where did I say you had? And you don't need to be asked to review and approve Gibraltarpedia articles, it comes naturally to you, never mind DYK rules and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I see no reason to apologise for anything here. That the Tommy Finlayson, a COI and copyright violating editor who also edited the Tommy Finlayson article, turns out to probably be another Tommy Finlayson from the same city with the same interests, is hardly "cataclysmically wrong". You haven't shown any other error, you made claims which can't be verified and which are hard to reconcile with the known facts. Not the first time of course. You should stay far away from any Gibraltarpedia articles on DYK if you want to keep any credibility and semblance of neutrality. Fram (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not particularly inclined to continue this discussion, as it's obvious that you're simply making things up rather than relying on facts. There's no point discussing matters of fact with someone who prefers to invent their own facts rather than respecting reality. Prioryman (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Those are some very not notable people by Wikipedia's standards, those Finlaysons. Nice of us to give them an outlet for their resumes. Clive Finlayson doesn't have a single reliable secondary source, unless it's that one single page from this book. Note how all his publications are nicely linked, and how we make him "an authority on Neanderthals" based on this website--I'm puzzled that anyone ever accepted that as a reliable source for a BLP in an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Those blue links were to Amazon. They're gone now. Apparently the entire family, including Clive Finlayson's wife, is notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia editors aren't always the best at establishing notability when writing an article. Clive Finlayson is most definitely notable, though his article does not do a good job of reflecting this fact. I am not so sure the others are notable, though.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I suppose the Beeb wouldn't have asked him to write something if he weren't at least marginally notable. The surprise is that this came through the DYK Quality Control Filter, which is otherwise just lighting up with false positives. Drmies (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Looking at a normal Google search, Google News search and Google Books search, I'm not seeing anything even remotely passing WP:GNG for either of the Finlayson brothers. Accordingly I've prodded both. — Scott talk 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I can only guess that you don't know how to use Google, since there are plenty of returns, especially for Clive. I've unprodded them since they're both clearly notable. JSTOR alone would make any AfD a foregone conclusion, so don't even bother with that. Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Have you even read WP:GNG at all? — Scott talk 21:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, obviously. And I know perfectly well that prodding the biographies of internationally noted, widely cited, decorated experts in their respective fields is a pretty silly thing to do when GNG is borne in mind. Prioryman (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Clive is probably just about notable. His brother, borderline. His wife, though - not in the slightest. Black Kite (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I am plenty familiar with our notability guidelines and it seems clear the younger Finlayson is quite notable. As I said, I can not speak for the elder Finlayson or the younger Finlayson's wife. The latter two you can address as you wish, but it would not be correct to claim that Clive Finlayson is non-notable. His bio could do with some re-tooling to move away from primary sources and make better use of the abundance of secondary sources out there, but that does not warrant deletion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • You know, the really stupid thing about this particular part of the discussion is that comes out of Fram's assertion that User:Toromedia, the contributor of the photos on Devil's Gap Footpath, is Tommy Finlayson. He's not - he's a different individual of the same name. I don't think any of the Finlaysons being talked about here have ever edited on Wikipedia, at least to my knowledge. Prioryman (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The interresting thing is, that a minimum bit of research will show the distinction between the two Tommies. :-) Agathoclea (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────The bottom line here is, whatever the genesis of the article, there is no way that it is appropriate for Prioryman to be reviewing Gibraltar-related DYKs. Let someone who isn't closely assosciated with the Gibraltarpedia project do it next time. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

You may not be aware, but the current restrictions specifically allow for one of the two reviewers to be Gibraltarpedia-related. As the other reviewer was not, that condition was met. I have previously rejected and pulled Gibraltar-related nominations for not meeting standards, so I can hardly be accused of rubber-stamping. On the other hand I think it would be a very good idea for Fram to avoid any further involvement with these DYKs as the litany of false claims that he's posted above makes it very clear that his bias is so strong that he's incapable of making fact-based judgments on this issue. Prioryman (talk) 05:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Tumandokkangcabatuan unblock request[edit]

Unblock request declined by User:Tariqabjotu.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 16 July 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.

This user has a request for unblock that has been waiting for almost a day and a half. Can an admin review please. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe admins have been looking at this request but the user didn't give a satisfactory answer to Ed's response, "You'll need to persuade the next admin reviewer that your block is no longer necessary. A good beginning would be to apologize for revert warring, and promise not to keep reverting in the future when it is clear that people don't agree with you."
If I reviewed that I would decline on that basis. With only a few hours on the block remaining, it won't make much difference.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
As someone who has been blocked I can categorically say that having a block removed even five minutes early can under some circumstances make a huge difference. Apteva (talk) 20:38, 16 July 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.

FACTUAL evidence should be used not PERSONALIZED translation[edit]

Several subjective users have attempted to manipulate the article on the "Shooting of Trayvon Martin" to suit personal ideologies. Wikipedia's policies serve to maintain neutrality and OBJECTIVITY rather than personal "prose". Credible sources should be used as references , such as the New York Times, rather than individual leaving "notes" .. What authority do they have to make such authoritative "notes"? Users like Arzel and Froglich violate the rule of objectivity and follow "personal dissertation" . Wikipedia is for objectivity not a BLOG for personal verdict. Cmo910 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Yes. This is best taken up on the article's talk page--with specifics, rather than with generalized statements. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Or WP:BLPN Apteva (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipediocracy and outing[edit]

The bottom line is that no admin is going to "do" anything about this, and neither is arbcom. These issues were in front of them just last week and they rejected the case. Whether the person who closed this was involved or not will not change that result. Sorry folks, but nothing is going to come of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC) This isn't an appropriate place to discuss privacy issues - the Arbitration Committee is the appropriate body to deal with this, as Sandstein rightly states. Prioryman (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Closed to avoid further Streisand Effect and privacy violations - see hatting note above. Prioryman (talk) 07:35, 17 July 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.


Wikipediocracy, amongst its other issues, has now become a platform for repeated massive breaches of WP:OUTING. When identified WP editors (or to be fair, Wikipediocracy editors claiming to be that Wikipedia editor) post articles deliberately attacking other WP editors [redacted links to] then things have gone too far.

We would (rightly!) never permit these sorts of outright attack within the WMF space.

I believe that such attacks off-wiki are incompatible with continuing to edit at WP, much as per WP:NLT.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Some editors have clearly identified themselves, under usernames equivalent to those on Wikipedia but on other sites. Why should that constitute outing? And besides, you're using a white supremacist editor as an example for your claim of "massive outing"? Are you serious? By "outing" such a character I think that Wikipediocracy is doing a public service more than anything else. Wer900talk 00:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
My reading of WP:OUTING and WP:NPA has so far failed to locate the section that says, "Unless they deserve it, then it's OK".
WP has problems and there's certainly scope for outside channels that discuss this. However Wikipediocracy has got so far out of hand that it's now even worse than the sins it complains of. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this doxing is getting out of hand. They've been doing it for almost two years now, but this is just getting really bad, really fast. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Given that Wikipedia has no control over external websites, and given that (as Andy Dingley points out) we can't even be sure that someone posting on Wikipediocracy is who they claim to be, there seems to me to be precisely f***-all that can be done about it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I concur, but also note that providing links to off wiki outing is not appropriate, and I recommend deleting the above example links before this section is archived. I recognize that it is pretty hard to talk about something without explaining what one is talking about with a link. Apteva (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
We have a pretty good idea of which not-yet-banned editors are promoting this pro-Scientology material on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Um, I thought this was about Wikipediocracy, not Scientology? I very much doubt that even the most optimistic of admins would expect to exert any control over the latter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
So the difference is what? The interests have been declared. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
There is no credible claim that those identifying themselves on Wikipediocracy are not who they claim to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Mine may be a minority opinion, and I haven't visited Wikipediocracy and don't think that I want to do so. However, I think that, unlike Encyclopedia Dramatica, Wikipediocracy is not meant well and is not meant to be humorous, but is either malicious, or, at best, has only the excuse of middle-school humor. My own opinion is that anyone posting a link to Wikipediocracy that refers to a specific Wikipedian should be blocked, and should then explain that he wasn't outing anyone. I told you it was a minority opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
[ec with Robert] Can we stop with the persistent arguments over Wikipediocracy? All that's happening is (1) a Streisand effect and (2) annoyance to those who of us who really don't care. I'm tempted to close this as a "wrong venue" with instructions to complain to Wikipediocracy, because we have no more control over them or their participants than we do over the New Zealand Herald and its writers. Nyttend (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
We have just the same issue with WP:NLT: WP's response to which is that such off-wiki actions are incompatible with continuing to edit here. The same approach could be applied to Wikipediocracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
If you are proposing a policy change, this isn't the place to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Robert's comment is exactly like the sort of nonsense one sees on the letters page of the Daily Mail. (I'm guessing, I don't actually read that newspaper and don't think that I want to do so.) -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy left me a message alerting me of this discussion, so I assume it has to do with my most recent blog post on Wikipediocracy. If it helps, I can confirm that I wrote that blog post. I can also confirm that it contains the real life name of a long-term WP user and exposes them as a self-declared member of the Ku Klux Klan. I sent ArbCom a message about this yesterday to let them know it might come up on-wiki. ANy questions? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes: How on Earth aren't you banned yet? — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
For what? Carrite (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia.

~ WP:OUTING (emphasis added) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
You will note, of course, if you read beyond the line that you quote and emphasize, that this is a policy with respect to so-called "outing" on Wikipedia. Off site is off site. Carrite (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Where has DC "outed" this character on WP? Should Andy Dingley be blocked for his opening statement which links to the off-site "outing"? (diff) -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I can also confirm that it contains the real life name of a long-term WP user and exposes them as a self-declared member of the Ku Klux Klan. You can make the case that simply saying "it contains the real life name" isn't explicitly onwiki outing, but saying that someone's in the KKK most definitely is. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and, as to Andy... it's not block-worthy because it is at worst a good-faith mistake, and at best it's not even a violation of policy. (We have Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment, but that's a guideline, and it doesn't even categorically prohibit links like Andy's.) Personally, I think that the endless side discussions about what links you can include in the Wikipediocracy discussions ultimately just distract from the main issue. But, hey, if you wanna redact the links, I won't stop you. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 02:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
..saying that someone's in the KKK most definitely is.
Sorry but no, it most definitely isn't. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 02:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Everybody needs to be sure they read this piece on Wikipediocracy before they offer opinions. I'd make it easy to do with a link, but I'm sure some cowboy would block me for it. All the same: read first, opine second. Carrite (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus on what can be done in response to off-site outing, but it has been consistently proven that trying to deal with it on-site serves only to draw attention to the act of outing itself (Streisand effect, as has been mentioned earlier this thread). If the people who are made upset by the presence of outing on another site would simply avoid talking about it in public fora, then the only people to find the outing would be the those who knew where it was to begin with. This may sound like a really shitty answer to the problem (which again, editors can't agree is a problem), but it may be the best answer you'll ever get. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Streisand Effect is precisely what DC is looking for when he engages in his habit of doxing. He's trolling, and we respond, unfortunately. Resolute 03:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Trolling? What a cretinous statement! Who started this thread? Heaven forbid that anyone would actually do anything useful round here. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Those anxious to rally to Mr. Buffalo's defense might be interested in THIS edit summary from July 14: "Undid revision 564203455 by Ryulong thanks snotty, and watch your edit summaries, asshole" or maybe THIS one: "Undid revision 564203729 by Ryulong you did put a summary "Check your damn talk page"-fuck off and stay fucked off." Nice. Carrite (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Come on Tim, this is not about Kintetsubuffalo and you know it. Outing (hypothetical, according maybe to our guidelines, whatever) is OK if it concerns a bad person? Drmies (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything seems to be verifiable. Without this kind of work, Qworty and Little green rosetta would still be editors in good standing. I think reprehensible off-wiki behaviour of any kind may be justification for banning from the project, but DC's behaviour in this case is far from reprehensible, and may be considered a public service. There is no harm in the world knowing that a teacher of children has those publicly-declared interests.

I hadn't noticed that first blog post until you opened this thread - as I'm sure many hadn't - so thank you for publicising and directly linking to it on one of Wikipedia's most watched pages, Andy. But doing so breaches at least the spirit of our outing policy, so I've removed both links to the blog. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's very sensible to redact the links, and I would appeal to others not to repost them, here or elsewhere. Enough damage has been done already - let's not add to it. Prioryman (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

While the offsite article at issue does make for interesting reading, it roughly amounts to "User X has the real name of Y and is probably a really bad person, including a racist and a pedophile". This raises the question of what to do with the poster and the subject of the post.
As to the latter, I am not aware that we have a policy allowing or requiring us to sanction users for reprehensible offwiki behavior. Intuitively I think that it should be grounds for sanctions because it reflects very badly on Wikipedia (I can see the tabloid headlines: "the encyclopedia written by pedophiles!"). But any attempt to implement this would clash violently with our current privacy rules as well as the adage of us being "an encyclopedia that everyone can edit". The best suggestion I can come up with at this juncture is to first develop consensus on whether we want to be able to sanction users for reprehensible offwiki behavior, and if yes, develop a rules-based, privacy-respecting process (probably by and via ArbCom) for implementing it. Then it can be applied to the instant case.
As to the poster, our policy WP:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment is to my surprise very clear: "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." In addition, "in extreme cases, such as legal threats, threats of violence, or outing, protective blocks may be employed without prior warnings." On that basis, it appears to me that there is clear consensus based in policy that offwiki outing is grounds for onwiki sanctions up to and including a ban. As to what to do now, the outing policy instructs: "In serious cases or where privacy and off-wiki aspects are an issue (e.g., where private personal information is a part of the issue, or on-wiki issues spread to email and 'real world' harassment, or similar), you can contact the Arbitration Committee or the volunteer response team by email, in confidence". Accordingly, I believe that the ball is in the allegedly outed user's court; they can submit the case to the Arbitration Committee for a private hearing. The Committee is in a position to consider any possible exculpatory arguments, such as the "public service" argument. I do not believe that an onwiki discussion is helpful in cases such as this where offwiki, private information is relevant; it only tends to compound the privacy issues. In the meantime, nobody should further complicate the problem by continuing to post potentially private material or links to such material onwiki.  Sandstein  06:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

For God's sake Sandstein, the editor the post is about identified his interests and himself, by name, MULTIPLE TIMES on wiki. Andreas JN466 07:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
If that is so, then we may not be facing a question of outing, but a question of whether the post otherwise constitutes harassment. In either case ArbCom is best qualified to handle this.  Sandstein  07:23, 17 July 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.

Prioryman and Sandstein are the last persons who should be closing this, particularly since Sandstein just admitted that the Arbcom request was flawed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman isn't even an administrator... I guess NAC flies at AN, learn something new every day... Carrite (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think considering the history with Wikipediocracy, Prioryman is WP:INVOLVED when it comes to matters concerning wikipediocracy (I'm not commenting on the merits of the case, I am merely noting a long running feud exists). NAC is actually fine at AN and ANI, but being involved isn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm am a little puzzled by this. We appear to have affirmative evidence that someone is a card carrying racist bigot, and probable possible paedophile. Framing the exposure of a Klan member as possible harassment is madness. Outing policy is meant to protect regular editors, not racists and paedophiles. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Another admin issue[edit]

Happy birthday, LadyofShalott. (nac) Ishdarian 18:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Today LadyofShalott, administratrice extraordinaire, turns 25 yet again. She likes champagne and chocolate, and giftcards for the iTunes store. She graciously accepts compliments about the beauty of her mind and her body. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the admin issue that you seek assistance with? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I know this is intended to be joking and all, but perhaps we could avoid making jokes about other users' bodies and how people should praise them (or not praise them)? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Quite. Unless I'm missing something here, this comes off...rather improper. Ironholds (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Jesus, tough crowd! And did Ironholds really just lecture Drmies about impropriety? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Bushwa, Drmies and LoS are very good friends, and this is obviously a well-intended and humorous note with not a hint of impropriety about it. You folks need to re-discover your sense of humor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hence "unless I'm missing something here"; if I am, great :). Floquenbeam, if you have an issue with my conduct I invite you, as I have invited others, to discuss it with me and offer me a chance to participate in the conversation. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Even if LoS were to be personally fine with having her body discussed on AN, it still wouldn't be an appropriate conversation to have on a website that's struggling to not objectify, offend, and drive off female editors who might be reading. Like I said, I get that Drmies is making a friendly joke and doesn't intend harm, but the outside world reading this is going to get the impression that Wikipedia admins are cool with discussing female contributors' bodies for their own amusement, because lol-isn't-it-fun-to-talk-about-women's-bodies-publicly-even-when-their-femininity-has-nothing-to-do-with-this-website. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Why not hat the discussion then, rather than drawing more attention to it? Obviously not everyone appreciates this humourous post. Fine. Why not close it, insted of turning it into something bigger? ---Sluzzelin talk 18:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Because I think it's important to make the point that, at least from my perspective, this is Not Okay. I would like people who read this section to see that not everyone thought it was awesome, funny, and appropriate for this noticeboard, because obviously a notable portion of male editors think it's harmless to say things like this and it alarms me that readers would be left with the impression that everyone here does. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey folks. Obviously this is a really complex issue and it's hard for us as a community to wade into it. We want, very much, to retain a sense of fun and lightheartedness and there can be a beauty to compliments that we don't want to miss, and at the same time, we also want to retain an atmosphere of being able to question - because these "cases" are in some sense the places to have the hard conversations because it's here that the stakes are low (ish). We can have a sense of good faith that Drmies means well, and we can have some faith that the compliment will be received in the spirit it's intended without damaging reputation, so we can look at it and ask the hard questions about "Huh. How would a new editor see this? Are there patterns that we may be blind to that may create?" I will say that the same compliment from two different people has a very different flavor to it, so that's part of what's so sticky, and intention is so hard to read on text, so it's worth asking if we err on the side of safety in how we publicly frame things...but we have an environment of non-censorship that is crucial to who we are. I think it's important for A fluffernutter is a sandwich! to be able to raise the questions, and also for the compliment to be honored as it was both meant and perceived. I don't have resolution on this (there clearly isn't one). BTW, Happy birthday, LadyofShalott!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyoung (talkcontribs) 18:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for editing through the hat, but as the person for whom the birthday wishes were intended, I will take the liberty. Drmies is indeed a good friend of mine, and I appreciate the good wishes. I also understand the concerns that others have raised. I don't want to stir the drama, so I'll end by saying thank you for the good wishes and return you to your regularly scheduled topic-hatting. LadyofShalott 13:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Skype Controversies of a tribunal in biographical articles[edit]

Isn't adding an individual section for 2012 ICT Skype controversy' irrelevant in these articles?

--রাহাত | 05:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Ban proposal for user Nachiketpatel2531[edit]

User:Nachiketpatel2531 is repeatedly vandalizing the article Controlled atmosphere by deleting the Wikipedia content and introducing non-constructive edits. These were reverted several times. I have now reverted the edits and have looked into all his/her contributions and they are all unproductive. The user has no personal page on Wikipedia but I have created one by putting the Template:AN-notice there to notify him/her. noychoH (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

NoychoH, it is true Nachiketpatel2531's edits are problematic but WP:AN isn't the right place to handle this. The first thing to do is to revert the small number of promotional edits - and that's been done already - and to give Nachiketpatel2531 a warning about promotional editing. I gave Nachiketpatel2531 a warning, let's see if the behavior changes. If after several warnings the problem continues, the next step will be to report the user at WP:AIV as a promotional account. Zad68 13:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see this problem from time to time at Portal:Contents. New users attempt to create an article about themselves by blanking an existing article and replacing it with their own content. Not vandalism per se, more of a WP:CIR#Editing beyond your means issue. --Auric talk 14:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's take five minutes and help close an AFD[edit]

OK folks, we have an AFD that was closed as Keep. It was a good Non-admin close by User:Mdann52, and I endorse it, and would have closed it the same way had I been brave enough to, etc etc. No questions about the close. But have a look at the afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achinger coat of arms. It's a mass nomination of, at the time, over 230 Polish coats of arms. Now that it's closed, there are 215-ish articles that need to be untagged and have the old afd notations placed on their talk pages. A reasonably accurate (and updated) list can be found at User:Snotbot/AfD report - if my fellow admins would each take 5 of these, we'd knock them out in no time. The editor who closed (and who really should be the one who does this sort of thing) is unable at the moment to access AWB or similar tools that might speed this up, otherwise I'd make him do it on principle. Thanks in advance! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 7:52 am, Today (UTC−5)

 Done shortly after this was posted. Mdann52 (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Why in the world would User:Mdann52 go and close another AFD that was most certainly not eligible for WP:NAC. They have already been advised to stop, IIRC - this is totally and obviously not within NAC reach (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
@Bwilkins:Can you link to the discussion where this warning came? The only think I was able to find was User_talk:Mdann52/Archive_5#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FLynn_Parsons, of which issues were fixed. Mdann52 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I dunno, maybe I read the consensus as being clearer than it was - but it's precisely the same close I would have made. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 02:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

AfD issues[edit]

I have two gripes, both concerning AfD:

  1. Mathbot is saying there are no open deletion discussions more than seven days old, when there are actually a lot
  2. There are things from Monday and Tuesday that haven't been closed yet

I posted notices to Mathbot and his operator last night, and neither the bot problem, nor the backlog, has been fixed pbp 15:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

  • That is odd. Perhaps a note at WP:AFD/OLD that the logs should be manually checked until this is resolved? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    Smth happened overnight (European time). Yesterday evening all open discussions were shown, and today in the morning they were not.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
    (Non-administrator comment) I'll go ahead and add a note to the page. WikiPuppies bark dig 17:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
July 7 closed (was only one nomination left).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems in bad shape[edit]

There is a pretty massivegantic backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems (at least as far back as April). Wizardman has been clearing out a day of backlog every few days, but things are coming in about 5x as fast as he can clear it, so if anyone is interested in helping I'm sure he'd appreciate it. Should be pretty straightforward, instructions are at WP:CPAA. Prodego talk 01:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I mean, any help would be welcome. Just cleaning up one article or even checking that the nomination has already been cleaned up would save some time for a few regulars there.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

second opinion on close requested.[edit]

Request a second opinion on the close of the following RFC as no consensus Talk:Gun_control#RFC

This is the second RFC on the topic

(the current one created by myself, the other created by someone on the opposite argument)

Both RFCs threaded discussion dominated by mostly the same entrenched editors, but the new RFC was very widely advertised and had significant input from uninvolved editors. We are unlikely to get such a wide input again, and saying that entrenched editors have no consensus in their discussion - was the entire reason to make the RFC in the first place. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

You haven't yet discussed this with the closer. A little bit of effort on your part towards that end will both work towards resolving any issues that you have, and simultaneously give us something in particular to look at. Closures get reviewed on a specific basis - a particular problem with the closer's summary or understanding. Until there is actually an issue that you and the closer have discussed but not come to an agreement on, there really is nothing for anyone to look at. Come back after you've actually discussed the issues with User talk:SlimVirgin and figured out what you want reviewed. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 03:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Badanagram and Toddst1[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.

Dear Wikipedians! I found the following facts:

  1. Badanagram (talk · contribs) and Toddst1 (talk · contribs) had a long history of strained relationship. In July 15 yet another their clash occurred.
  2. In July 16 Toddst1 indefblocked Badanagram with the substantiation “multiple instances of IP sockpuppetry”.
  3. In the ensuing discussion the only “IP sock” named (and labelled by Toddst1 as a suspected sock) was (talk · contribs) with one edit in articles and two posting at AN/I.
  4. At Toddst1’s talk User:Tony1 pointed that the block lacks a substantiation and deviates in many aspects from the established practice. There was no substantial response (sarcasm not counted).
  5. Me, User:Incnis Mrsi, pointed two times that a formal investigation was not started (that is a standard practive for any acc with noticeable positive contributions) and no IPs with WP:signs of sock puppetry were demonstrated. Again, there was no response.

Whereas Toddst1 now departed for a vacation, I ask the community to assess this situation. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:05, 20 July 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.

urgent urgent URGENT![edit]

Passed on to the emergency@WMF. Edit revdelled. Blackmane (talk) 09:49, 21 July 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.

What to do about this edit here!??? I just saw it and don't know what to do! Joke? maybe,... but if not this sounds serious! The Carabinieri can definitely help - call from anywhere 112 and they will pick the girl up and bring her to their nearest station, but I am at a loss here if just posting on her talk page that number will help! Advice please! thanks, noclador (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Emailed emergency@wmf similar to WP:SUICIDE. DMacks (talk) 15:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
thank you for the quick response! noclador (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, a call from anywhere in Italy and the Carabinieri will respond. The IP address indicates whether it is in Italy. Anyway, the emergency was dealt with properly and has been redacted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 20 July 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.

Arbitration motion regarding Syrian civil war articles[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In March 2013, an administrator notified the editors of Syrian civil war and several associated pages that the topic area fell under the scope of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which provides for a blanket one revert per editor per article per day restriction as well as discretionary sanctions. A request for clarification or amendment has now been filed raising the issue of whether the topic-area of the Syrian Civil War falls within the scope of the Arab-Israeli topic-area for purposes of arbitration enforcement.

The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic.

However, the administrator action extending discretionary sanctions and the 1RR limitation to Syrian Civil War was taken in good faith. Several editors have commented that the restrictions have been helpful to the editing environment and that they should remain in effect. No one has requested that the Arbitration Committee open a full case to consider the issue.

Accordingly, the existing sanctions and restrictions applied to Syrian Civil War and related articles will continue in effect for a period not to exceed 30 days. During that period, a discussion should be opened on the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN) to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. If a consensus is not reached during the community discussion, any editor may file a request for arbitration. In the interim, any notifications and sanctions are to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this


Can someone tell me the original source, author and license template of this file: File:Njmap-0219.png? Armbrust The Homunculus 10:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The only information was "Map showing Fort Lee within Bergen County, NJ. Created by Charles O'Reilly from public-domain images at the State of New Jersey Web site. {{PD}}". It was uploaded by User:CharlieZeb on 17:07, 9 January 2005.--v/r - TP 11:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this the right place to make such requests? I've always made such requests here (when logged out or on my alternate, non-admin account), because I can't think of any better place, but we have so many boards for this and that and the other that I wonder if we might have something dedicated to looking at deleted pages. Nyttend (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Not aware of one for that, but another means is to ask any admin on their talk page. Apteva (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Please check edits of User:Tu Real Socio[edit]

Please check edits of User:Tu Real Socio and discussion in Commons--Musamies (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

INeverCry blocked TRS at Commons; I've asked him to come here and offer input. TRS hasn't done much here except a lot of userspace edits (not good ones, but not reason for sanctions); he created a couple of file description pages without files (I've deleted them) as well as making a few mainspace edits, but after checking every edit he's made here, I see no reason to block on those grounds. However, INeverCry blocked him at Commons as the sock of another account, and that account is currently indef-blocked for vandalism. If they're clearly linked, a sockblock is in order, but I don't know the situation well enough to judge that question; that's why I've requested INeverCry's input. Nyttend (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 Confirmed I ran CU on Commons, and the 2 accounts are definitely connected. I didn't see any other connected accounts there. INeverCry (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I've blocked the account here. INeverCry (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposing topic ban or possibly site ban of User:McKhan[edit]

Proposal withdrawn. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:10, 22 July 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.

While looking at the Baboon43 situation above, I saw that both instances of edit warring of Baboon43 were against User:McKhan or his sock-puppet User:AmandaParker. While the latter was blocked indefinitely after an investigation, McKhan got away with a one month-block. Furhermore McKhan has a much longer block log. [5] (Why he was not blocked in 2013 given incessant edit-warring [6] escapes me; presumably he got good at gaming WP:3RR.) Given that nuclear options are so popular here today, I propose a topic ban on Islam as the de minimis solution for stopping McKhan's disruption. A full site ban should be considered as well. Note the unrepentant attitude and personal attack after he was caught socking [7]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment - this seems punitive at the moment; the last evidence of disruption hails from March, and the last block was last year. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Just because there isn't an bunch of editors of the same religious affiliation to open a RfC/U on him? You have evidently not read the talk page archives of Al-Abash; people were getting fed up of the feud between him and Baboon 43. Please read the comments of User:Darkness Shines and of User:SudoGhost mid April. I think that in view of the block log, this cannot be allowed to continue year after year, RfC/U or not. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
His last block was for this. Personally I support a topic ban on McKhan, she has been massively disruptive on the Abash article for years. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that diff; that's a far more a