Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262

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

Noticeboard archives


Proposal to ban JOttawa16 from political articles[edit]

JOttawa16 is topic banned from political articles. Number 57 10:24, 20 May 2014 (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:JOttawa16 has proven not to be able to be neutral when editing political articles. He has created "Decade of Darkness" twice and "Harper Derangement Syndrome" both of which were basically attack articles against liberals. Since the deletion of decade of darkness he attempted to add it to several articles, despite being told not to. It seems to be clear that he cannot edit political articles without being bias. JDDJS (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support topic ban. "Harper Derangement Syndrome" was an eye-opener for me because it was such a blatant, even laughably biased attack article, from an editor who has been around long enough to know better. He knows full well about WP:NPOV. But I'd say he's demonstrated most recently that he doesn't really care much about it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • My only other comment is that we'd also need to watch out for more WP:COATRACK articles like "Decade of Darkness," which was ostensibly a military article, even as it was clearly another anti-Liberal Party of Canada attack page, at least when I saw it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. I really can't understand how any user could possibly create such a biased attack article. You don't have to be a long-time user, overly familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, or even particularly knowledgeable about Wikipedia decorum. Common sense would seem to indicate that this kind of disruptive trolling would be unwelcome anywhere. It shows an inability to edit political articles and a complete disdain for NPOV. To me, his behavior with respect to the "Decade of Darkness" is secondary, but it shows how determined he is to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. He seems to see nothing disruptive about his behavior and quotes "the truth" as his justification (see the discussion at the recent AfD). I don't think he's going to change. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban - Interacting with this user and the many pro-Conservative Party of Canada and anti-Liberal Party of Canada articles he has created and then which had to be deleted, it has become very clear that WP:NOTHERE applies. From his edit history this editor is clearly using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX to promote his own political agenda and in a very blatant and unsophisticated manner as well. His user talk page has a list of these articles. The Canadian news media has carried stories discussing how the Conservative Party of Canada pays its members to flood forums, news and discussion groups, news site comments and other user-created content websites with pro-party propaganda and the behaviour of this user is consistent with such practices. - Ahunt (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment I would like to see your evidence that I'm a paid person of any political party. Otherwise, I suggest you retract your ridiculous statement immediately. JOttawa16 (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Comment - If you actually read what I actually wrote I didn't say you were a paid political contributor. - Ahunt (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Seems reasonable to me. That is quite a blatant attack. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment While I think it is good to be concise, I also think some evidence should be submitted in the form of diffs/links to support the proposal being sought. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I looked at Harper Deragment Syndrome here, courtesy of google and it doesn't appear to be an attack page. He's writing about what has already been written, in fact, his sources show that it's a neologism covered by more than one source source 1 [ source 2 ] [ source 3 - and yes this is an opinion , written by a staff writer ] passing mention occurs here where another politician is described as having harper derangment syndrome and finally this one - this one might not be reliable

His first link is broken to be sure , but it's easily fixed or replaced with this one . The article itself says what the sources themselves said, no coatrack, no syn nor any or. Now, I wasn't able to find the second article, but the first article appears to be ok and not an attack. KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 16:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

    • I disagree with you. Just because it is sourced, does not mean it's not an attack article. He wrote the article as if it was an actual mental illness. If saying that people who disagree with you are mentally ill is not an attack, then what is? JDDJS (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Are you shitting me? "Harper Derangement Syndrome (HDS) is "a mental illness that affects Canadian supporters of the left-wing New Democratic Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada'..." isn't an attack page? It goes on and on like this, in just that tone. As I said at the Afd, yes, "foo derangement syndrome" is a widely used term. Plug in Bush, or Obama or yes, even Trudeau, and you get Ghits. But this article was written as a pure attack page. It wasn't about the term, it was using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAP for the term, in it's most extreme POV way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Shawn I assure you I'm not. However, just so you know, I'm not a Harper hater, nor a supporter, I hadn't heard of him until this report. Howervr, a description of Harper's Derangment appears here and he didn't quote it word for word. He paraphrased it. Could that description be worded better ? Sure! However, it's not an attack page. KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 19:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I won't badger on this point. IMO it could not be more clearly a textbook Wikipedia:Attack page. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, I don't know what KV is talking about, clearly an attack page. BMK (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
When are we going to delete Campaign for "santorum" neologism and War on Women as an attack pages, then?--v/r - TP 00:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Never? The lead to the second one begins quite neutrally "War on Women is an expression in United States politics used to describe..." This is not at all what we have here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
"...certain Republican Party policies..." All article start out neutral, at least until they get to the "" or "...used to..." And the Santorum page? Wikipedia should not be writing articles about all the crap that gets created and spread on election years to smear others.--v/r - TP 00:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I have changed the lead on War on Women to include "perceived" to clarify that it is opinion. As for Campaign for "santorum" neologism, it's well sourced and simply documents the facts that happen. It is very significant. The article is the first result when you google Santorum. JDDJS (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't neccessarily have done that. I'd just look at focusing "War on Women" to the feminist movement and remove the political coatracking. Then I'd delete Santorum altogether. Although I very much doubt it'll get deleted, my point is that all it takes is for a well known politician to bash their opponent and all of that politician's supporters to raise the banners and blog about it before the mainstream media reports on it and whatdalyahave - a fully sanctioned attack page. Our policies fully support this.--v/r - TP 02:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. It might be useful if an admin could copy these deleted pages to a temporary space so that people can see them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban - this is an editor who, alas, seems unable or unwilling to drop the stick regarding the particular point of view that he's been pushing. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban - per Bushranger et al. BMK (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban HDS was a clear attack on the opposition parties and their supporters. TFD (talk) 01:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support block or topic ban Wikipedia is not a political toy for bashing others. It's bad enough when new editors think it is, but when established editors demonstrate clear abuse of this project while knowing better, they need to be removed from areas where they can not display proper judgement.--v/r - TP 01:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban Laurentian consensus seems to be the latest example. The user seems intent to make articles where they can put forward their bias. If you make an article on a term used only by people with your bias, you know that all the "sources" will agree with your bias, and you can pretend that you're just following the sources. This problem can't be dealt with by just AFD'ing each case. Because, the user still gets to put out their bias for as long as the article lasts, and then a new one is created after that. Editing an established article means an instant revert, but that's not possible with new articles, where all the content is bias, and there's no neutral version to revert to. At a minimum, there should be a limit imposed on creating new political articles. --Rob (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban. Seems obvious this editor is not cut out to edit in this area. --John (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is ridiculous. I have a Masters degree in political science and I love helping my community however possible. I have only ever written non-partisan articles that are well-researched and supported by ample evidence. At the same time as this individual nominated me for a topic ban, he also nominated several of my articles for deletion, clearly as a form of harassment and attempting to silence the truth. This is obviously a violation of WP:PA and WP:HA. JOttawa16 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose, qualified. If the material is reliably sourced, then the wording may need to be changed to make clear that it is a section or article about ideas that are held by particular individuals. The narrower the segment holding them, the narrower the media and public interest, the less space should be given, but no one should be banned from a topic because they wish to report on unsavory perspectives. Specific sets of American attitudes in the South regarding slavery were abhorrent; no one would ever suggest we should not allow coverage of them. If, however, other interested editors provide necessary balance, and Mr Ottawa reverts or wars, then that would change matters. Bottom line, if reputable sources are talking about these subject, however ludicrous or offensive we might find them, it deserves mention here, with space allocated on the basis of the importance and magnitude of the discussion. (We need people to relay—not champion, but relay—reputable reports about Lars von Trier words at Cannes in 2011.) To not allow such perspectives to be voiced, or to slay the messengers (which, at times, will agree with the message, other time not) is a frightening course for Wikipedia. Rather than ever put this forward in the affirmative, I would elevate this. To topic ban for an editor's for choice of material alone is very troubling. There are things that each of us might wish silenced, for unsavoriness, at WP. Don't do it. Silencing dissent is a pernicious temptation. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The main issue was neutrality in the articles, rather than whether they should have been written. One article for example began, "Harper Derangement Syndrome (HDS) is "a mental illness that affects Canadian supporters of the left-wing New Democratic Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada'..." In fact, the "disease" is not listed in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. We do not begin the article on Von Trier by saying he is the best director in the world, just because he said so. TFD (talk) 15:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    • What you're proposing is that it's okay for politicians to use Wikipedia to gain coverage for whatever kind of foul sewage they spew as long as they can get the media to report on it. No need to worry about facts or truth, we're just going to be a gossip blog from henceforth - a reliably sourced gossip blog. The solution isn't to write "the crap stinks" in neutral words, the solution is to not allow the project to be used to bring attention to mudslinging in the first place. The BS that comes out of election years ins't at all notable. New BS will come out 2 - 4 years later that will get just as much "ooo" and "awe". WP:NOTPOLITICALTOOL.--v/r - TP 19:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
    • The problem here, Prof, is that the articles are not written as netural analyses of the subjects. They're written as attack-and-slander POV-pushing pieces, and the editor in question continues doing this, repeatedly, despite having been told in no uncertan terms that it's unacceptable. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - this is obvious and the editor will get off lightly if this is all that we do. Anyone who can create articles saying the Harper thing is a mental illness is probably shouldn't be here at all, but perhaps this will turn him into an acceptable editor. Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support topic ban or site ban. I wasn't familiar with any of this, so I read some of the deleted articles, and was appalled. Harper Derangement Syndrome was a no-holds-barred piece of political much-spreading. The sheer dishonesty of it was staggering, claiming that HDS "is a mental illness" without any attempt to offer any evidence of any medical support for the term, let alone evidence of a clinical consensus in support of it. Decade of Darkness did it at least start by acknowledging that it "was a term coined", rather than presenting it as a fact, but it used the term as a coatrack for a highly partisan analysis of Canada's defence budget. In some ways this was worse, because it had better chance of sneaking under the radar. Some of the material might have been have usable in a broad article on military spending in Canada, but this was a blatant POV fork.
    The reason that I support a site ban is that an editor who does sort of thing in one topic area is quite capable of doing it elsewhere, and I see no benefit to the community in simply displacing this activity to other topics. JOttawa16 claims above to have a Masters degree in political science, and if it's true that they are educated to that level, then they will know perfectly well that what they have been doing is unacceptable. This is an editor who is clearly WP:NOTHERE, and the project should take an unequivocal stand against editors who abuse Wikipedia's purpose in this way.
    However, if there isn't consensus for a full site ban, I will support the proposed topic ban as a lesser but important step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • User's edit here[1] shows that he cannot understand consensus. Six votes for deletion (two of them suggesting speedy), two weak keeps (one from an IP) and a keep from the creator. And yet, he can't see the clear consensus for deletion. JDDJS (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you TParis I wasn't going to mention the Santorum article, but yes, I agree, it's an attack article and needs to be delted as such. KoshVorlon   Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj 10:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't going to mention the Santorum article, but yes, I agree, it's an attack article and needs to be delted as such.
Wrong. Completely wrong. Look at the list of references. The Washington Post, ABC News, Time magazine, The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Routledge, Philadelphia Inquirer, The New York Times,, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Chicago Tribune, Fox News, PC Magazine, MSBNC, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, The New York Times, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, .... — goethean 15:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
my point is that all it takes is for a well known politician to bash their opponent and all of that politician's supporters to raise the banners and blog about it before the mainstream media reports on it and whatdalyahave - a fully sanctioned attack page. Yes, we know there are sources. Any politician who opens their mouth will get repeated in reliable sources. That's a weakness and loophole in our policy.--v/r - TP 17:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you replying to me? That may be an issue with the media, but Wikipedia can't fix the media. — goethean 18:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was replying to you, and yes I know. Which is why I don't normally bother arguing the point. But a fix in policy specifically aimed at election years would go a long way toward these 'fully sanctioned attack articles' and the editors who battle in political topics to create and bias them.--v/r - TP 18:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
What's interesting is that even the media which wants and intends to be neutral (i.e. they aren't running with the story because it supports their intrinsic POV) will repeat the story because it's "out there", and failing to report it would leave them open to charges of bias from the ideological media. The end result is that there's no longer any real barrier that prevents those kinds of stories from running pretty much everywhere. That is a systemic flaw created by the contemporary re-introduction of ideological mass media outlets (something which had almost disappeared), the 24 hour news cycle (which creates the need to fill time) and instanteneous reporting from practically anywhere on earth (which puts a premium on delivering stories and doesn't allow time for them to be checked before airing) - and we suffer from the fallout. BMK (talk) 19:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, there are huge problems with the contemporary mass media, and BMK rightly notes some of the big ones.
But Wikipedia is not just another mass media outlet struggling for market share, nor is it like journalism the first draft of history; it is an encyclopedia, striving to document topics of long-term significance from an NPOV perspective. That means, for example, that we approach a topic from an NPOV perspective, rather than doing what JOttawa16 did, which is to take a soundbite and use it as a coatrack for a POV-fork of an encyclopedic topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It reminds me of a programming principle: Garbage in, garbage out. If the media is producing the crap and that is what we use the develop articles, then are we really producing a high quality encyclopedia or a one-stop-shop archival service of crappy news? We have to have some kind of editorial filter, as we do for every other topic (notability guidelines), for election/politics related neologisms and political attack platforms. WP:Political Platforms (notability) would be a start.--v/r - TP 22:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:POVFORK covers a lot of this already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

12 editors in favor of ban, only three editors against it, and that includes the editor in question, and the discussion has died out, so can we close this and institute the topic ban? JDDJS (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this has reached a conclusion. Please do. - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
No. Your censorship of topics you don't agree with is not cause to ban someone from writing about anything in that field ever again. JOttawa16 (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not censoring topics I don't agree with. I don't know or care about Canadian politics at all. What I do care about is articles that are written clearly to insult the opposition, by saying things such as people who don't like a politician are mentally ill, and people who clearly don't understand when to stop beating a dead horse. JDDJS (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2014 (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.

Requested edits[edit]

Category:Requested edits is badly backlogged (a request from 19 March is unanswered, for instance). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

We're backlogged everywhere. We need to start nominating people for RfA. We complain that RfA is broken and people hardly pass, but if we don't nominate folks then no one passed. We've only had 12 candidates pass this year, only 37 nominated. Find someone who patrols the autoconfirmed version of requested edits and nom them for adminship.--v/r - TP 23:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, few specialists seem to pass RfAs. There are general expectations voters have that require substantial experience in content creation, fighting vandalism, AfD discussions, plus be an active editor for 2-4 years. I don't see more editors passing RfAs until there is a realization that Wikipedia needs more admins and the goal is acceptable not outstanding. It seems like there was a big push in 2006 for more admins and I've come across editors with 3-6 months experience being elevated to admin status. I'm not suggesting returning to that standard but maybe more active editors need to realize that the current situation, with more admins retiring, is not sustainable. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Is that a bolt-on of autoconfirmed? I would be very happy to help out if given addn tools but no way am I ready for the mop yet! My block record is clean and I do serious gnoming and generally help out and comment. Irondome (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Fancy you show up Liz. When is your RfA? I do do noms. (edit conflict) Irondome, I'd give you a review/possible nom too if you guys want. Even if you fail, everyone fails once (I did).--v/r - TP 23:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't fishing for a nomination! Although I created my first account in 2007, I think I'd need a year with this account and the creation of several articles. Right now, I'm focused on categories and gnomish work. But thanks, that's flattering. Liz Read! Talk! 23:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Liz would make it. Irondome (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Liz, I'm not in the business of catching fish, or flattering people. I'm in the business of getting more active admins in the places that need admins to be active. It's a practical question, we all need to find good candidates. Hell, we need to find marginal to acceptable candidates to even try even if they fail once or twice; not that you are marginal. I don't care if I like the candidate personally, I don't care if they have a political POV that differs than mine, or religious differences. I only care about people who are active, level headed, and are committed to areas needing admins. Do you want a nom? Irondome?--v/r - TP 00:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha. It's not the right time for me but I'll let you know in the future. Liz Read! Talk! 12:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Liz, if you have created articles with a previous account, couldn't you point that out? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It's all on my user page. But I did most of my previous editing as an IP, two of which I've noted. But it was intermittent editing, not like the daily editing I do today. But, yes, I assume the previous accounts would be brought up for any editor in an RfA. Liz Read! Talk! 12:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
TParis, encouraged by your comments I may have found another candidate (User talk:Dodger67#A fix for that title blacklist problem...Anne Delong (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Part of the backlog has likely been caused by the serious weeding at AfC over the past year - Tens of thousands of deletion requests, hundred of history merges, etc. I'm sure that sucked up a huge amount of admin time, but should be easing off now. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin has absconded halfway through an SPI investigation[edit]

I filed an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdogno5 last week. User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry started an IP check which has been running for almost a week. He has hardly edited since so I made a request at his talk page a couple of days ago for him to finish the check so the case can progress but there hasn't been a response. Since I filed the case, the editor I filed against is already on to his second block and a lot more behavioral evidence has come to light in the meantime. The problem is I need the IP check either completed or canceled so the case can continue. I understand if no-one wants to get bogged down in an SPI, but if someone could just get the IP check wrapped up I would be much obliged. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

  • SPI is backed up, CU in particular. Since the editor in question is already blocked, it tends to get the lowest priority. Once a CU starts a check, I'm pretty sure that none of the admin or clerks can do much of anything, only another CU can conclude that portion of the investigation by checking or declining to check. There also exists the possibility that another CU has already noticed it, but thinks that since the editor is blocked for edit warring and was a sock, he will come back, so is just monitoring. Perhaps a CU will see this and revisit it. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite honestly, the problem is that an answer was given, and then a lot of pressure was put on the checkuser because people didn't believe the answer. Standard practice is to block accounts based on their behaviour; if they are doing something blockable, they should be blocked for that behaviour. I've completed the check, the accounts are unrelated, and the SPI can close now. Risker (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the heavy lifting, I will look at it for close. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for completing the IP check guys. @Risker FWIW I didn't actually request or expect a second IP check since I wouldn't have expected the result to be different (IPs can change for any number of reasons i.e. posting from a place of work/college, coming home from college, changing your ISP etc) and I actually agree with you that there should be behavioral evidence against a suspect before they are blocked. Betty Logan (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive Nature[edit]

I feel this user is making disturbing, unfounded and covert allegations. I request the administratory board to have a look on this issue. This is a serious problem. Some two are three men trying to take control of Public contents are totally unfair. I feel a strong need to give people a fair chance of reading a good and clean content. Also he tried to change the edits which were totally in accordance with wikipedia editing norms. I fully abide by wikipedia norms and regulations. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skandasol (talkcontribs) 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Skandasol: To go from you giving this kind of praise to you reporting the user to this noticeboard in the space of eight minutes, Muon must have done something pretty catastrophic. Considering they didn't edit during that time, please can you tell us exactly what allegations Muon made and which edits were disruptive? WaggersTALK 10:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I have reversed this edit by Skandasol because it added a comment with what appears to be a signature of Muon. @Skandasol: Please see WP:TP for information about talk pages. On the last line of your comment, add a space then four tilde characters (" ~~~~") for your signature. Please add your comment again, with a signature. Johnuniq (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
My edit history is available. Please have a look and do notify me what those disturbing, unfounded and covert allegations were. I have not attacked anyone personally and will never do so. I have reverted the edit that I believed was objectionable. This was my revert. μTalk 13:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

He said the following 'You are adding sex related statements to an article about Hindu deity'. His statement indicates an action which i did not purport to do and at the same time it did hurt me lot. I kindly request the Administrators to take back his words. My point is the word with reference to the context, the word 'enticed' clearly expresses a state where a person gets sexually induced. Again the concept of Procreation is objectionable. We are talking about Mythology(it may or may not be true) the point of adding reality goes astray. Keeping this in mind i edited the content to an acceptable level. Also I ask the administrators to revert his edit. I feel the act and statement of him shows high-handedness. I feel hurt and treated unfairly. I sincerely hope I am done with an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skandasol (talkcontribs) 15:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If this is so sensitive a subject to you, you should seriously not be editing Wikipedia. Your edits can only be justified by citing an independent reliable source that verifies the information you want to add, and supports your reasons for doing so. They can't be justified because you find "the concept of procreation to be objectionable". I'm sorry if that sounds insensitive, but we need to edit from a neutral point of view in our articles. -- Atama 22:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Backlogged move request dealing with WP:Commonname[edit]

The discussion at Talk:The Beatles (album)#Requested move is 12 days old, and the arguments are going rather circular. The main point under discussion is whether WP:COMMONNAME is controlling for an album, or if WP:OFFICIAL can overrule it. Could an admin take a look at the discussion? Thanks, Dralwik|Have a Chat 15:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

User:GoodDay ban appeal[edit]

By motion, the Arbitration Committee has resolved that:

The site ban of GoodDay (talk · contribs) has been suspended subject to the following terms:

For the period of one year after unblock, if GoodDay violates any user conduct policies at any time, any uninvolved administrator may restore the ban. Furthermore, if GoodDay is given any legitimate block by an administrator during the period, the ban will be restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

User:DeltaQuadBot (looks for inappropriate new usernames) is dead again[edit]

2014 Latakia Offensive[edit]

User:EkoGraf is persistently edit warring over the last few weeks on the article 2014 Latakia offensive to include a controversial statement regarding the supposed "continuation of the Armenian Genocide" in this article. This user is misusing references to support this statement, with one reference being a deadlink,[2] and one reference even specifically describing such a statement as a 'hoax'.[3]. This user has recently taken to deleting sources that have been added. This is an a notable example I believe of WP:SOAP, WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE. Please can someone intervene to make sure wikipedia policy is being applied correctly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

First, I am not the only one reverting user 94.197.120..., several other editors (at least three) have also reverted his removal of the sourced information at the article page along with its sources (this can be checked by the edit history of the article) in the same time period. I reverted him maybe once or twice over a period of several days, other times he was reverted by the other editors (who he also promptly reverted). Second, I am highly offended by his accusation that I am misusing references to support a statement regarding the supposed "continuation of the Armenian Genocide" in this article, which I myself did not edit into the article. The previous editor used even more inflamatory language, which I watered down for sake of compromise with another editor who did not like it and was in an edit war with that other editor. After I watered it down their edit war stopped. Further, the anonymous user used in-proper language during the removal of information ALONG with its SOURCES, calling in the edit summary ether us for inserting it or those that stated the information childish warmongering (violation of Wikipedia: Civility). Lastly, the sentence does not state in any way a genocide or massacre occurred during the offensive as user 94.197. is making it out. The full paragraph, properly per the sources, states that the flight of civilians and Turkish involvement during the rebel assault on the Armenian town has lead some to compare the offensive with and view it as the massacre of Armenians that occurred during the Armenian Genocide. Those some in the sources being the Armenian president ([4]), multiple US Congressmen ([5]) residents of the town themselves ([6]) and other notable personalities. I would think calling the statements of the Armenian president and US congressmen childish warmongering shows a high level of non-neutral POV. As for the broken link (which was most likely broken during the reverts) he could have just asked for it to be fixed like this [7]. And again, they were not comparing any killings to the Armenian genocide, instead they were comparing the flight of the Armenians to the forced evacuations of the Armenians during the genocide. I have now watered down the statement even more for sake of compromise that they were comparing the displacement to the exodus that occurred during the genocide, not to any killings. In any case, the comparisons to the Armenian genocide were notable enough and frequent enough in the news that in some form they need to be presented in the article on the offensive. Pushing one singular POV for the removal of the properly sourced information would not be acceptable in any way per Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. So if anybody was engaged in an improper edit war it would be user 94.197.120.... I would be gladly open to a dialogue with him on proper compromise wording of the text, but he has shown no sign of such desire. I was even thinking of reporting the issue myself to an administrator for possible protection of the page from un-registered users. But since he has raised the issue for me, I would like to formally ask what proper course over the situation could be done, or what compromise solution could be found? As for his allegation that I have taken to deleting sources that have been added I was also offended. Accidental removal of a source or two during the reverts is possible, but intentional no! Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Can an admin please take a look at this article? User:EkoGraf is still showing intransigence with this exact same controversial sentence, and insisting the sources state things they in fact do not (i.e. only one reference mentions offical non anecdotal Armenian concerns regarding Turkish involvement in the offensive). This is really starting to get ridiculous, making WP:UNDUE edits that have little to do with the article and arguing the minute details of Sharia law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
To claify the problem regarding the WP:SYN sentence in the lede. The issue of present day alleged Turkish involvement—that actually relates to the article in question—and connections to past "genocides" is highly problematic. None of the sources provided state that Turkish involvement is the reason the Armenian genocide is being evoked. Not the Armenian presidential statement. Not the Armenian residents statements. Not Kim Kardashin's tweet. Not even the Armenian National Committee of America letter to Obama mentioned in the Washington Post article, which is the only source provided (other than a few anecdotal remarks by Kessab residents) that is actually concerned with present day Turkish involvement in the offensive. You need to understand that Turkish contemporary involvement in Latakia vis-à-vis the Armenian genocide is an extremely specific and controversial accusation which isn't stated in the sources. Yes, Turkish involvement in the offensive is alleged. Yes, the historical context of the Armenian genocide is evoked. But the two are never specifically linked to present day events in the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it, I was not the one who added the part about alleged Turkish involvement, that was some other editor weeks ago. What I have been reverting this whole time is your unsourced OR about an Armenian lobby being the one who is making the comparison. Up until tonight you never voiced direct concerns specifically about the part on alleged Turkish involvement. You should have said that a week ago and I would have removed it if it wasn't in the sources, which I did tonight after you pointed that out for the first time. And if you are so bothered about the sourced part where rebels want to impose Shari law on the minorities why did you yourself add the source in the first place and now suddenly when the extreme jihadist views are mentioned you think of it as undue weight? In any case, the part about the Turks has been removed (per your wish), your part about an Armenian lobby is unsourced so it can not by any means go into the article, and the part about the sharia law I removed (per your wish, although it IS in the source) but the part about jihadi views in addition to other more tolerant rebels stays since its properly sourced. Hope the wording is finally satisfactory to you. EkoGraf (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the sentence still exists in that it isn't fleshed out and isn't properly explained. The edit regarding the Armenian lobby in the United States is not WP:OR at all. Every representative mentioned in the LA Times article penning the official letter to Obama is a member of the Armenian caucus except for David Valadao, who is very much a prominent advocate of Armenian issues and has been desciribed as an "ally" of the Armenian Assembly of America. If the term Armenian Lobby bothers you so much the Armenian National Committee of America can be used as they are spearheading the Armenian attention surrounding Kassab. Also the jihad quotes you picked out (and used in the most scandalous way possible) are problematic due to opposition PR disagreements not being a major factor of the fighting, and the quoted Non Profit worker not at all being specific (is he referring to ISIS or al Nusru or some other faction? He doesn't say), or even explicitly talking about Latakia (rather than the Syrian Opposition in general).
Also, the small issue of personal attacks. There is no need to accuse me of wanting to add clarifying material to a wikipedia article because it the issue "hurts" me, as you did here. Then you changed this phrasing as if no one would notice here.
Who is being selective now, not all of the congressmen are members of the Armenian caucus, and most surely the Armenian president, the military analyst, Kasab residents themselves or Kim Kardashian are also not part of the caucus. So neutral wording would have been, as it is, some. and used in the most scandalous way possible You mean it was scandalous because I quoted almost word-for-word what the source says? It's your personal issue if you don't like what the source says because Wikipedia is edited based on sources not our own POV. In any case, for sake of compromise, I will attribute the scandalous part of the source to the person who pointed it out and put it under quotation marks. EkoGraf (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
You are dumping all the comparisons of genocide in one quote farming sentence with no attribution. And inserting the incredibly specific views of one Middle East expert when talking about the Syrian opposition (unrelated to the article) in general is the definition of WP:UNDUE. Serious tone issues also. You have deleted the statement by the president of Armenia yet included this obscure academic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The statement of the Armenian president is in the foreign reaction section. You would notice this if you bothered to read the whole article. And the comparisons are not to the genocide as you claim all the time, but to the exodus during the genocide. And the obscure academic belongs to a well-know think tank. His assesment has been attributed and quoted properly per Wiki procedure. You should have maybe read the source more carefully before bringing it and inserting it in the article yourself, if you don't like the part about mixed rebel messages that much. EkoGraf (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion about this at Talk:2014 Latakia offensive. That's where this conversation should begin, not at WP:AN. You need to develop a consensus about these edits since it is clearly a contentious subject. Liz Read! Talk! 12:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, I have learnt from past interactions that this editor EkoGraf has no legitimate interest in forming a consensus. You can see from their summaries on the article in question and from the argumentative responses here (as well as the personal attack linked above) that this user has not modified their behavior or sought to assume good faith in the slightest. All they seem intrested in is inserting an endless series of WP:SOAPBOX sentences that misuse the references provided to back up a specific POV. I still believe admin intervention is the only solution. At this point I am willing to let the Armenian genocide sentence stand in its current form. It is not fleshed out or specific, yet EkoGraf seems determined in retarding the article in this particular respect, so at least the previous extreme and unreferenced statement regarding the "continuation of the genocide" has been removed. If you (or another admin) could edit the WP:UNDUE qoute EkoGraf is now attempting to stuff into the lede—that doesn't specially mention any factions, or Latakia, is talking about the Syrian Opposition in the broadest sense, and is not even talking about online progranda which is the subject of the sentence/paragraph—then this issue could be resolved and I can (happily!) go about other things.
You need to sign your comments, using four tildes , ~~~~, so it is clear who is commenting here. It's impossible to follow a conversation without knowing who is speaking. Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem, FYI it was me the IP. (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
EkoGraf has no legitimate interest in forming a consensus Aha, yeah right, my numerous attempts at changing the wording for consensus's sake in comparison to your full reverts, which can be seen in the edit summary's, is clear indication I have no interest in forming a consensus. And the quote you keep talking about constantly that you want removed is talking about the rebels different ways of treating the minorities, which is the topic of the paragraph. And for the last time, that previous wording that you find extreme was put there by some other editor weeks ago, not me. EkoGraf (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
You reinserted that exact wording about the "continuation of the Armenian genocide" (after a 70 year hiatus?) several times. The problem with the "jihad" quote is that it isn't specific and it is broadly speaking about the conflict as a whole (I.e. context was an issue). However, as long as the involvement of Shi'ite militias and Assad regime internet disruption is mentioned in the same paragraph, then it it will be WP:BALANCE and I will consider this matter closed. (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
It won't be in the same paragraph because it is not on the same subject. The source talks about the involvement of Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite militiamen and even Iranian military advisers in the sense that they were there to bolster the Syrian military in a military sense. There is no talk about them being involved in any sectarian violence or even targeting the civilian population let alone the minorities, as you wrote in the article (totally unsourced). As for the internet thing, I'm not seeing a purpose for it to be in the article since it was going on even before the offensive and was not even a result of the offensive or even linked to it. But OK, I will let it stay in, but not in the same paragraph, because again it has nothing to do with the persecution of the minorities (subject of the paragraph). And I'm still waiting for an explanation of your removal of sourced information that the offensive has been stalled and has petered out. EkoGraf (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The source mentions the targeting of Sunni neighborhoods. But that is not a concern really. However, the source makes clear that they are identified by sectarian insignia. And the subject of the paragraph is progadana and its relation to minorities. Have added a new source to balance the previous quote. Also the "petered out" language is not needed and not a vital part of the source. How about just presenting the facts. (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
I support the action of editor EkoGraf because they are logical and are absolutely justified so I fully support his actions and I also participate in the editing of this article 2014 Latakia offensive. But some anonymous editors try cause harm to this article. But the editor of EkoGraf just trying to eliminate the consequences of such actions and lead article in order. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the WP:PERSONAL User:Hanibal911. Appreciate it buddy. (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Also the "petered out" language is not needed and not a vital part of the source. How about just presenting the facts. That is a fact and a vital fact. A fact that clearly shows the offensive has ended/fizzled out. So do not remove sourced information. And contrary to your claim the source makes no mention that Hezbollah, Iraqis and Iranians targeted those areas, as you originaly wrote and obviously continue to claim. Per the source it is the regular security forces who are targeting those areas while hunting rebels, not cracking down on minorities. And their insignias have nothing to do with sectarian violence towards minorities, but rather to signify what religion the militiamen belong to and further to the point to distinguish them from the regular military units. EkoGraf (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Why do they need insignia to indicate their religion? It likely has everything to do with sectarian violence, but it is easy to misread a source and yes it does say the army targeted Sunnis. Regardless, this insignia ponit is important and should be mentioned. The "petered out" claim is fine and not something to worry about. It would greatly help wrap this thing up if you assumed WP:good faith? (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It likely has everything to do with sectarian violence In other words, its your personal opinion that it has to do with sectarian violence, and its not what is said in the source. yes it does say the army targeted Sunnis It actually says they targeted Sunni areas in pursuit of rebels, in other words, they weren't targeting Sunni's specifically. And I'm not understanding why you want it to read Iraqi militia "bearing Shi'ite insignia" instead of simply Shiite Iraqi militia. I would think my rewording and rewriting of the text at every occasion in pursuit of compromise and to satisfy you has shown enough good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry EkoGraf, but milita who happen to be Shi'ite are a very different thing from milita bearing "Shi'ite insignia" as the source states. And furthermore, milita bearing Shi'ite insignia ≠ Hezbollah—and you stating they are is original research. If you are going to be anal about the exact verbatim wording of references making broad claims about the offensive as a whole, and quoting the exact opinions of academics regarding ill defined "jihadi" factions, then including what the source says in this case is a no brainer. There is no other neutral way but to include this in the article. (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I NEVER said militia bearing Shiite insignia equals Hezbollah, that part you made up and accusing me without any proof of OR in this instance could be considered a personal attack. Secondly, milita who happen to be Shi'ite are a very different thing from milita bearing "Shi'ite insignia"? You serious? You going to propose maybe they were Christians but so happened to be wearing Shiite insignias? Doesn't matter, in regards to that sentence, the case is closed. So I would hope that you stop edit warring. EkoGraf (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Only in your mind is making referenced and constructive edits a form of "editing warring". You are free to disagree with interpretation, or weight, or any other criteria, but it is not edit warring or vandalism as you have accused. I hope you can move on from this and become a more neutral and inclusive editor. If only you had paid as much attention to sources as you seem to be doing now in the first place, this (unfortunately necessary) step could have been avoided. I'm glad I brought light to this issue and it has been recorded. (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I could also make some remarks in regards to your conduct but I'm going to stop at this point and take the high road. The case is closed. EkoGraf (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey admins[edit]

Is (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Kumioko? We had some of his disruption in gun-related articles, and I think this is a continuation thereof. And if it's not him, it's some other troll attempting to disrupt a couple of discussions; dropping a warning with some chit-chat on User talk:Lightbreather. Anyway, if there's an expert of some sort--whether a CU or a Kumioko expert--please have a look. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Check the edit filter log. The "banned user" filter had been triggered multiple times... Connormah (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
So, that's a yes? Please block, if so--I already filled my quota today. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
And this has nothing to do with Candleabracadabra, for sure? See this. Very similar edits, here-> Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly. I am apologizing if I am wrong but it is strikingly similar edits, behaviour, style and voice. And remarkably similar misspellings, see this one of the IP, from the:
23:30, 19 May 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+372)‎ . .Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly ‎ (Please respect All edotors. Thanks) misspellings, .
As far as I know there are not many editors who spell like that ( except me, of course). [sorry to but in] Hafspajen (talk) 03:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
No Haffy, your English is fine, and it's not Candle, as the filter log suggests, though the latter has taken the IP's case to heart on their talk page. That IP, of course, could have expected to be called out on their own English when they were trying to improve "non sentences". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Now, I say that that IP it is User:Candleabracadabra. Same style, similar edits, behaviour, voice. Drmies, don't forget that if it is the way I say, (and it would be worth checking), Candl. can't use his/hers account right now, because you blocked that for some hours, so s/he must go IP. If I am wrong I will apologize to Candle, promise. But I don't think I am wrong. I really think that the "banned user" and the User:Candleabracadabra is same person. Same topics too, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly same talkpages (yours, Drmies), same style, same ... everything. Hafspajen (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Who goes and votes and turns everything upside down on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly ? Banned IP.
Who goes and turns everything upside down on User talk: Drmies ? Banned IP.
  • OK, who has been blocked for harassment, peronal attaks and uncivility by Drmies ? User:Candleabracadabra.
  • OK, who has been blocked for harassment, peronal attaks and uncivility Banned IP. (this is I suppose, don't think it was copyvio - issue).
Who goes and turns everything upside down on User talk: Drmies ? Banned IP.
OK, so, considering same edit style, same kind of expressions and so on... Hafspajen (talk) 05:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Who says things that sounds like this style: This is evil censorship and bullying. I am right and they are wrong. You cannot allow lies and slander to appear on Wikipedia articles! This is censorship. This article is about a very important person, clearly 'x' (where x nominated the article for deletion) has never heard of them, doesn't like me and is pursuing a vendetta!, This is pure vandalism – nobody can read the article without these sad and pathetic busybodies graffitiing their self-importance all over the place!

Both. Hafspajen (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Above citations are from the Wikipedia:Don't throw your toys out of the pram - not what these editors actually said, but it is in the same style, if you got me.

  • Now let's see a citation User:Candleabracadabra: So you want to rein in the incivility? Go for it Drmies. But don't get mad at me for telling the truth. When you guys create a mess and involve yourself in it and muck it up, and you get stuck doing mopping I don't break a sweat. Cry me a river. I don't create articles in bad faith EVER and I don't edit in bad faith EVER and I try to keep a sense of humor about all the attacks I face, but I don't like it. So if I hurt your feelings, good. You deserve it. Show your fellow lowly editors a little respect in the future and don't act like such arrogant wp:dicks.
  • Now let's see a citation Banned user: have made several other edits that have nothing to do with this. Quit trying to win by attempted mischaracterizations. It is uncivil. Single purpose accounts only cover one subject and besides defending against your ludicris accusation I have made only one comment about this. Please read WP:SPA for clarification. Thanks and please find a better avenue than insulting editors intentions and mischarterizing their contributions.

Hafspajen (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly think this is a very good case for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. I would probably fill in if I only knew how. Hafspajen (talk) 05:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
For the record, I've strongly suspected that Candleabracadabra is CoM for awhile, but hadn't really intended to make a big deal of that here. The 172.56 IP was definitely an identity-hiding established user, but I didn't see any connection between that IP user and Candle when I was tussling with him in the AFD. Tarc (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
<redacted - banned editor> Kumioko (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know for sure if it was you, but it was certainly someone who's been around the block a few times. That is all. Tarc (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


This user User:Tutelary is idiotically showing up her nature. She's deleting a page showing fake sites. Please look up this user & take a strict action against her PrateekTamilian (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Please provide some links, or diffs if possible. All I see are edits removing messes you've made, including introducing copyright infringements, which (let me remind you) make you liable to be sued or prosecuted in real-world courts. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This is probably the latest TekkenJinKazama (talk · contribs) sock. I've submitted a new report on SPI for this (and another TJK sock). Ravensfire (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
It is definitely a sock. I've blocked them. I always appreciate TJK being obvious and helping us find their latest socks. -- Atama 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Homophobic and antisemitic talk page comments need revdel[edit]

The last four (as of this moment) edits on Talk:Conchita Wurst need to be hidden. An attempt to hide the comment yesterday failed to remove it all, making it possible for the same IP to add it back again today through a simple revert. Thomas.W talk 16:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by Future Perfect. Thanks.Thomas.W talk 16:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Need to fix a move[edit]

Can an admin kindly move Kalaignar M Karunanidhi, back to its original heading Karunanidhi. A user has recently moved this article 4 times. The present title is not in accordance with WP:HONORIFIC. But I am unable to move it back.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 06:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done by User:DMacks . --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 06:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
User also moved/multimoved/moved-and-moved-back several other articles...looking to see if other cleanups needed... DMacks (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I cleaned up a few more, think it's all done now. I also notified User:Kisskisscheta, whose actions we're discussing, about this discussion here. DMacks (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I did not inform him/her, because it was just a request for help. Not really a report or something. S/he did not do any page moves after s/he was given general warnings. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

User: Alexzr88[edit]

--Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User: Alesxzr88, who cites irrelevant sources in articles of history (books of non-historian writers), referred to me as "fanatic" You can see here. Could someone please make him stop treating me like that?--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Complaints about incidents like this are normally posted to WP:ANI, not here. However, since you're here, let me add that there is no rule against citing sources written by non-historians. We require reliable sources. We do not require sources written by only members of one academic field. WhatamIdoing (talk)
I should add that "fanatic" isn't even on the list of words to watch, and it can even sometimes be a good thing, if in support of policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Linking to discussions in signatures[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.

Having read the policies, and and discussion below, it is abundantly clear that User_talk:Darkwarriorblake is clearly violating WP:SIG and WP:CANVASS. Further signing of anything on Wikipedia using this or a similar signature will result in an indefinite block for WP:DISRUPT until the signature is changed the panda ₯’ 22:43, 22 May 2014 (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.

  • Before I start crashing down hard on people who do this, what do other admins think about editors who link to discussions in their signatures? The ones I'm worried about are predominantly featured content nominations, but other types of nominations may end up getting this treatment.
Recently, at FLC, I've seen a couple signatures which are very worrying, including "(name) Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC (date)" and "Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker?". The first signature has lead to the nomination being linked from around 100 pages. The second links to the Joker article, and thus is harder to count, but is probably worth fifty links.
In my opinion, such signatures violate Wikipedia:CANVASSING#Appropriate_notification, in which wide-spread notifications are classed as "Excessive cross-posting ("spamming")". To avoid the influence of spamming, I believe that any such nominations should be immediately failed as tainted by not following process; blocks should probably not be necessary. Any other opinions?
Please note that any signatures I mention here are just for concrete examples, and not to single said editors out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think I'd definitely put a note on the user's talkpage that doing this probably constitutes canvassing, and leave it at that. If you have reason to believe that the discussion has been tainted by the pseudo-crossposting, beyond just the fact of the sig, then I don't think anyone would object to closing the discussion, but if everything looks kosher despite the sig, I'd let it slide. But definitely, this type of sig can have the effect of canvassing and should be eliminated. VanIsaacWScont 10:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
    • 100 crosslinks though... I doubt we'd say "just stop doing it" if that was 100 crosslinks in their own sections. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Crisco - it does violate Canvassing and should be disallowed. Kosh Vorlon    10:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
      • No, you probably wouldn't. But, then again, crosslinks with their own separate section would probably be more verbose, and also would assumedly be targeted as well. 100 crossposts to all the random places that a particular editor happens to comment seems like it would have more of a cross-section-of-editors quality to it than 100 crossposts at places an editor goes out of their way to choose to inform about a discussion. VanIsaacWScont 10:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
According to WP:SIG#DL
  • "It is better to put information on your user page rather than in your signature. Brief additional internal links are generally tolerated when used to facilitate communication or to provide general information, but undesirable if seen as canvassing for some purpose. Do not place any disruptive internal links (especially when combined with custom formatting, for example CLICK HERE!!!) in your signature."
I don't know if links to a FLC discussion are considered are considered "disruptive" but they could be seen as canvassing according to the guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 14:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Aside from the part about excessive cross-posting, are there any problems with these links? They definitely look neutral, and unless they were added in unbalanced places (the "vote-stacking" bit of WP:CANVASS), the only way these will change anything is by bringing additional users to the discussions. There's no reason to consider the discussion to be tainted; it should proceed as normal. The only reasons we don't permit this kind of thing is that it dilutes useful notifications and is generally an obstruction. Nyttend (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
If the person is basically a SPA and has the link to the one top topic that they always post to, it's not a disruptive form of canvassing. If the user, however, is a long-term user that posts all over the place, however, then it can be considered a violation of WP:CANVASS and should be altered. (And the three users whose signatures Crisco is referring to, they are long-term editors and should get that link removed because it's a disallowed form of canvassing.) Epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't normally come down like a stack of bricks, but one of the signatures that Crisco used as an example (when I came across it in the wild) infuriated me to the point of going to the page that was being sollicited for and asking for a quick fail on the grounds that the process was being stacked with editors for a specific viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, this is nothing but canvassing. Ask them to remove, and if they don't, then block. GiantSnowman 20:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with what? Which of the signatures do you feel forced anyone to go anywhere and comment in any specific way whatsoever? They are neutral notices that encourage participation in what is an otherwise long and arduous process that gets involvement either never, or only through EXPLICIT canvassing asking for input at specific sections. These signatures raise awareness, they neither force involvement or promote any specific agenda and it is impossible to control the outcome of anyone visiting those review pages, everyone attending can as easily go against as for. They're harmless and in no way fall foul of canvassing. Canvassing outright states that you cannot post in places where you know you are influencing the outcome you want, these links open up the process to the entirety of Wikipedia, to deride as much as praise. It states that notifications must be polite, neutral, clear in presentation, and brief. These signatures again pass. The audience is non partisan, the transparency is completely open, and there is no mass posting, there are no comments being made for the sake of pasting a link and if you can go find one where a response like "ok" was added to a page, purely to stamp a link on it, I will hold my hands up and take the link out right now. The first sentence of the article states "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." The second sentence states "However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." You don't even have to read two lines into the article to know the signatures are appropriate.
SAYING something violates WP:CANVASSING does not mean that is the truth, yes? Because it appears most of you have never read the article given that the links do not fail the CANVAS guidelines in anyway whatsoever, and claiming that they do AND requesting that the users, myself included, be blocked for not violating anything, borders on bullying at best since the intent is to force what appears to be your personal views ("I went and asked for a process designed to evaluate and elevate someones hard work to automatically fail because I was infuriated by a link" - Hasteur paraphrased) and cite an unrelated guideline as back up. Now. Since it is clear that CANVAS does not apply, I thank Vanisaac and Nyttend for their neutral and appropriate input, and believe this discussion can come to an immediate close. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:37, 22 May 2014 (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.
You can't close the discussion when I've just pointed out how the signatures do not violate WP:CANVAS. I've just explicitly itemised how it doesn't violate WP:CANVAS. You didn't even respond to the comments, just closed the discussion while blatantly ignoring the comments made. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
What you're doing is clearly disruptive. Signatures are just that; a tag at the end of the post to identify who said it. Anything beyond that, esp soliciting votes/comments/whatnot, should be squashed as a nuisance. Tarc (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
...unless you link to WP:WER. That's OK. Hm. -- (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he has been. He was advised of consensus above. Undid it ... with his consensus-violating sig. I did him a favour and reverted, but he decided to add new comments - again with the improper sig. He knew the restriction, chose to violate it, and continues to do so on his talkpage. Probably close to losing talkpage access the panda ₯’ 23:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I love that someone actually got blocked due to a having a link, to a article no less, in his signature. While half the signatures on this page made my eyes bleed when scrolling to this section. Keep on keeping on! Arkon (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Note: Apparently there are 2 others with inappropriate canvassing sigs...perhaps they should be advised of the results of the above ... give them a chance to change :-) the panda ₯’ 00:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

While I am a bit baffled that Darkwarriorblake has been blocked even though he has good intentions, I've notified the two other users about this discussion as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I click on your contributions link in your sig and I get sent to a subpage of yours instead of your contributions. In this of all threads. Hm. -- (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Yep, it details part of my major contributions to articles as well. I've been here for nearly 7 years actually. Anyways, back to the discussion at hand, I've notified the other two editors, but I am remaining uninvolved in this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Nothing against you. It's just the irony (and in some cases, hypocrisy) about sigs. To block, or not to block? -- (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I know. I just don't want to link to discussions that violates WP:SIG and WP:CANVASS and get blocked over it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • IP, this was specifically about linking to discussions. Not linking to user subpages that are not discussions. That is somewhat different, as WP:CANVASSING doesn't apply to user subpages that are not discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I know that, but when subjectivity creeps into the rules, it is very hard to objectively follow the rules. With that, I will stop poking. Cheers. -- (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What is subjective here? Everyone except you has been talking about discussions since this thread opened. Discussion: "the act of talking about something with another person or a group of people : a conversation about something." The page Sjones linked to does not even remotely fit that definition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Forgive me, I did not realize that my actions construed WP:CANVASSING and have removed the link from my signature.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have removed mine as well. However, I must agree with Dark, that I don't see this as CANVASSING as that has been defined there. But as has been decided, I have removed it from my sig. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is there some serious confusion about what canvassing is on the part of User:Darkwarriorblake? Canvassing never forces anyone to comment anywhere. Forcing people to comment somewhere isn't even simple canvassing, it sounds like a much more serious problem like threatening or something. Even some sort of quid pro quo arrangement (you !vote how I want in my discussion, I !vote how you want in your discussion) would be a serious problem beyond simple canvassing.
It's true that the signatures appear neutral and were open, unlike some more common canvassing. However it's well established that even neutral, open messages can be canvassing, particularly when they are targetted at people with a specific POV. In terms of targetting, while I see no evidence targetting has happened, there's always a risk it will when people are making it a standard part of their signature. It's easily possible that an editor is more likely to interact with (whether directly on their talk pages or indirectly in places where they hang out) editors who share their POV on issues. (The effect may generally be less than directly asking in these places, let alone with a non neutral message, but that doesn't make it more acceptable. And in some cases it may easily be more, e.g. if the person is signing regularly.)
More to the point, regardless of the possibility of inadverted or intentional targetting of a partisan audience, the canvassing page makes it clear excessive cross-posting or spamming also generally crosses the line in to canvassing. As has been stated by Epicgenius, if the editor was a SPA who rarely makes signed comments anywhere, it may be difficult to argue massposting or spamming has occured. Not so much when it's an established editor who regularly makes signed comments. Really any case where you are inviting editors in many different places is an automatic red flag. The only case when it's really acceptable seems to be if there is an accepted non partisan targetting of such mass invites, for example inviting previous participants of a xFD.
So we actually risk a double whammy here, both spamming/massposting and a partisan audience. Considering that, and the fact it also violates WP:Sig, there's clear reason not to do it. I don't think we need to go any further if editors stop since it's easy to understand that editors didn't feel they were canvassing.
Note that it's always the case that 'it is impossible to control the outcome of anyone visiting those review pages, everyone attending can as easily go against as for'. It's hardly unheard of for a flawed attempt at blatant canvassing (e.g. posting with a very non neutral message to contributors who are likely to share your POV) to actually have the reverse effect of the intentions if the canvasser infruriates enough people or simply because people who have been canvassed may be reluctant to get involved because of the canvassing even if there's a chance they would have found it and commented without the canvassing. (Of course the possibility that people could do this intentionally in some sort of false flag operation is another reason to take canvassing seriously.)
Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2014 (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.

About sources used in articles about countries[edit]

I come here to ask for opinions (sorry if it's not the proper noticeboard) about the sources used in ethnic groups in articles of various countries (mainly Mexico) because it will be easier to make the changes if i have the opinion of more experienced editors and administrators. My question is wheter official sources regarding ethnic groups (Mexican government officially recognizes only two national ethnic groups: "Mexicans" and "Amerindian tribes") should be favored over third party sources, many Latin American countries don't have official racial census, so often the size of their ethnic groups is open to massive speculation and variation depending of the source used, the CIA world factbook, Encyclopaedia Britanica, and various surveys done in Latin America all report different results for each country. I believe that for that reason is better to favor official sources, like in the article for Sweden, on it the ethnic group section in the infobox specifies that "no official statistics exist", or the article for the United States, which omits the section from the main infobox, and if needed mention the third party sources in the section for demograhics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aergas (talkcontribs) 02:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a question that is better asked at the Ref desk WP:REFDESK or maybe the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN Blackmane (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, the reliability of the sites that do say these numbers is not what is on question, I just want to know if official sources should be preffered over third parties. Aergas (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Deletion Box[edit] has been listed in the Articles for Discussion.However,A consensus seems to have been reached.How can I get an Administrators attention to remove the Article listed for deletion Box that appears on the main page?thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntug11 (talkcontribs) 11:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was relisted on May 18th for up to another 7 days. As such, it hits the "to be closed" list on the 25th the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hate to disagree with m'learned colleague, but since "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days", I've gone ahead and closed this, since consensus seems fairly clear. Yunshui  11:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there some behavior here we should be worried about?[edit]

Several edits [revdel'd] (can't tell by whom in the [log]); User:Callanecc has semi'd the page. (non-admin closure) -- (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2014 (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.

The history of Memento (film) over the last day + change has included some very strange edits from three sets of IPs with similar #s (but not exactly the same), all entering the fill-in-the-blanks text of a medical visit application (or something like that), and then removed by them, so net, there's no apparent disruption of the article. I could see this happening once, the person accidentally doing a copy-and-paste from something else they are doing from their computer and realizing their mistaken, but not this may times and with most of them being the IPs first or first major recent contribution after several months.

I'll keep watch on this but I am curious if this looks like any previous "attack" on a page that others know of. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe students making up a document that they want to see in wiki markup? Blackmane (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2014 (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.

Categories for discussion seriously backlogged[edit]

There are open discussions that are six weeks old, and nobody has commented on in over a month. Somebody needs to get in there and close the outstanding discussions pbp 14:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

BB88/Ich Pilot/et. al[edit]

A sockmaster (BB88/Ich Pilot/et. al.) primarily active on Commons (see commons:Category:Sockpuppets_of_Ich_Pilot) has moved on to vandalizing my userpage [8] and creating accounts with variants of my username (see user:Elcobbola4, for example, with vulgar user and talk page). Could I please have my user and talk pages protected (talk archives would be nice too) and, of course, the vandal account(s) should be blocked/reverted? checkusers may contact me if additional information is needed to possibly help locate sleepers. Эlcobbola talk 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Elcobbola: I've been trying to clean up his accounts globally since he's actively vandalizing on about four projects right now. I've set up a page on the CU wiki for this case, called B88, if you wanted to add some of the relevant info there. All of my info comes from the loginwiki, which is restricted in the data it gives. In the mean time I'll watch for more socks and could add your username to the global titleblacklist if you'd like, to stop his direct harassment. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, @Ajraddatz:, that would be appreciated. I'll follow up on the CU wiki. Эlcobbola talk 16:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to post earlier Done. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
@Elcobbola: - why didn't you say something? (just kidding, I promise) . Magog the Ogre (tc) 02:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Bot-like anon posting gibberish[edit]

See Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Really weird. I am requesting that an anon account be blocked for its actions. Adabow (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Your request has been granted. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Earwig took his ball in a huff and went home it seems.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As has been said numerous times in this thread, there is no cause for admin action here. Let's shut it down and move on. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks as though admin, User:The Earwig has become offended by requests to improve a bot, got all upset and shut it down, effecting the WP:DRN board very seriously. I request that this be looked into as this is some serious bull crap in my view. He cannot just take actions of this kind. He released the rights to that bot and had no consensus to remove it and tell others if they want it, they know where the code is. This needs serious attention please.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If I understand rightly, anyone could take the code and operate a bot for this purpose. He's linked the code, after all. Couldn't someone just create a new bot with this code? Wikipedia is a volunteer service; he most definitely can actions of this kind, and most definitely has the right to stop. He didn't even need to give us the link in question. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
So if I am understanding you correctly, Earwig operated the bot and hosted it and was independent of Wikipedia policy or consensus and can do as he pleases whenever the mood strikes them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Miller (talkcontribs) 03:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No, it means he's not forced to operate or take responsibility for the bot if he doesn't want to. --NeilN talk to me 03:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Right. To clarify, EarwigBot operates well within Wikipedia policy and consensus. Bots are governed by the bot policy, and the DRN clerkbot operated within consensus as decided by this approval request. This is part of the aforementioned policy. As Nyttend mentioned, we're all volunteers, so users are under no obligation to take certain actions, such as particular edits, blocks, or deletions. As bots are operated by users and are not under the control of Wikipedia itself, their operation and maintenance is included in this too. Thanks. — Earwig talk 03:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
This is indeed the same exact thing. Earwig operated the bot independent of Wikipedia consensus and policy and can just take his ball and leave. I have no idea what pissed the admin off and I don't care. I do care that an admin just pulled the plug because they got all pissy. That is just not cool or professional and it is noted and will be remembered. may have been the best thing for DRN. --Mark Miller (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
This is clearly disruptive to the project and over what? I still don't know what pissed off earwig to shut down an important bot, but as I Thanks for the memories. it was nice while it lasted.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Mark, you need to calm down. You've become more upset about this than The Earwig, and your posting about it here, the DRN talkpage, Jimbo's talkpage and to other editors. You aren't helping matters in any way. Maybe The Earwig needed to cool down a bit, and take a step back, but you are turning this minor situation into the end of the world. First, the bot was created by The Earwig, and as the operator he has every right to remove it. Second, he has a pretty solid reason to do so, and frankly I cannot blame him. He worked hard on the bot, making changes every time someone asked, only to be told that when he changed exactly what was asked, it caused more chaos and confusion. At this point, it would be better for someone who works more with the DRN to create a bot using the code (which he has given easy access to). Everything he has done with this is within policy, and is not in violation for any reason, whether or not he is an admin. He doesn't need a consensus to turn of his bot, any more than he would need consensus to stop editing all together. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you want the bot to run, then you take it over. If the editors of The Signpost decided to quit, would you bitch at them too? The bot operated with consensus. Consensus doesn't force an editor to actively participate at Wikipedia in areas they doesn't want to. --NeilN talk to me 03:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I fully concur with TLSuda's assessment, and I doubt Mark Miller's conduct will increase The Earwig's willingness to run a bot for DRN one whit. Also, expecting Jimmy to reply within 35 minutes? Yeah, sure... Huon (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Look at some of his other contributions, that's his M-O. If he doesn't get an immediate response that he likes, he gets upset quick, fast and in a hurry. Someone should order a new batch of chill pills. TLSuda (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No, that is not my MO. But thanks for the illustration on how an filing on this board is so quickly turned on the filer. Very nice touch there TLSunda. Gosh...perhaps accusing you of anything that pops in my mind would now be, but I am sure that was your hope. And Huon, it certainly is not my intention to get earwig to run that bot again. Seriously. --Mark Miller (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

And I don't care if Jimbo responds or not. Please. Give me a break. Jimbo responds to comments all the time and doesn't all the time. Please don't make me one of those that expects him to jump to atterntion just because I posted. I have already told Jimbo before that he need never actually respond to my posts. I make them to get things of my chest and to notify him of what is going on.. I actually think it is a waste of his time and that is exactly what I meant by that.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Project consensus and policy include things like the right to vanish. Should the Earwig decide to leave entirely, we would have no reason to object. Since he's doing much less than that, why should we complain? Since you're not attempting to convince him to change his mind, what's the point of this? Like the Earwig, you are bound by Wikipedia policy or consensus, which prohibits soapboxing and the use of this project as a forum. This page is meant for requesting action, advice, etc. of admins, or simply notifying admins: it's not a complaints department. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I get all of that Nyttend, but I am not just venting or complaining here. I felt this needed attrention and attention is what it got. Whatever the attention was the exactly what I was looking for...clarification on how this is possible. Sense clearly Earwig is under no obligation of consensus that was not exactly the most accurate analogy. I am not soapboxing by any means. A disruption of the project was made by an admin and I felt inclined to bring the situation to this boards attention. Regardless of the ability to operate a bot or not at the very whim of the bot operator, this does seem to be disruptive to the board and over what apeears to be a personal issue. I get what everyone is saying, I just wish i could get even one admin to understand what I am saying and where I am coming from. But I guess it is futile. In the long run it is only making me look like an ass and Earwig look in the right for what he did. Just because he/she can, does not mean it was right to do. Thanks for at least weighing in. That much, I appreciate of everone.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The only consensus that Earwig was mandated to follow was that of the relevant Bot request. And those don't require that a bot op run said bots indefinitely or at the whims of those that took their bots for granted. The only "disruption" that shutting a bot down causes is a reminder to the editing community of just how much work these bots do for us. Resolute 04:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Or that they are worthless enough to just say..."good riddance". Look, I was not involved in the discussion. Just read it and was shocked to see Earwig's reaction. But as long as it is within the standards of Wikipedia, I have no issue but to say that the reaction was not at all professional and there was nothing I could see from the discussion to cause that reaction. Too bad too.....because the amount of work it most have taken now seems to have been a waste of time.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Put another way: due to non-wiki obligations I was increasingly finding myself in a position where I could not meet the demands of the DRN folks who frequently wanted changes made to the bot. As a bot op, I believe it's my obligation to respond to issues in a timely and appropriate manner; since I found myself unable to meet this obligation, I decided to shut the bot down rather than keep it running in an unsatisfactory state. Really, it doesn't do anything major that humans can't do themselves; it was merely designed to make some processes easier, but since it was causing problems as well, the maintenance burden didn't seem worth it. If anything, the DRN volunteers had been asking for the bot to do less over the years, not more. I'm rather surprised Mark has found its loss to be such a big deal. — Earwig talk 05:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a firm line should be taken in a case like this because Mark Miller is doing everything possible to dissuade any volunteer from taking on a significant role in any area. I suppose Earwig just has to suck up the unpleasantness so far, but I would urge that a final warning be issued to Mark—sufficient fuss has been made and the matter should be dropped immediately. This comment confirms that assistance is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What...I said there is no abuse after edit conflicting with you to at least thank Earwig for the time they did operate the bot. You stated: Mark Miller is doing everything possible to dissuade any volunteer from taking on a significant role in any area. That is absolutely incorrect and absurd and a personal attack. Seriously. I encourage our volunteers and i can demonstrate such with diffs if needed. But before i start providing diffs, I want this editor to do so to demonstrate they are not making personal attacks. I have always been a supporter of DRN and the volunteers and think that you should put up or shut up.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I think you seriously need to calm down. Legoktm (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

call for help[edit]

NAC: This is not a "call for help", the OP just wanted a chance to bitch about Wikipedia, how bad it is, how bad the admins are, how it's biased in favor of liberals. Now that they've had that opportunity, and since this is about content, and not about anything admins are being called upon to do (except, I guess, to be better in some unspecified way), I'm closing it. BMK (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2014 (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.

Let me start by saying that administrators became administrators because many of them used to write articles. Some stopped, which is too bad.

Let me also say that some WP adminis are bullies who like to make snide comments and attack me after I post this thread.

I write because I see an extremely biased article and smear piece about this fraudster. It doesn't matter that he's a right wing person as WP is not suppose to be a liberal supporting website. See

When an article is this bad, a few WP admins who used to write articles should run to fix it. thanks. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

While you are at it, I don't like WP because of bullying . Be mindful of this if you want to improve WP. Get to not do it and help prevent others from doing it. Also try to be fair. There is a lot of inconsistency in WP but a common excuse is other crap exists. No, e should strive for balanced standards. One minor example is the selection of articles. TV episodes are considered notable but not a small town mayor. Video games but not certain people who have been in the news with hundreds of articles. Weird.

Notability is not about small town is about particular small town mayors. In other words, some small town mayors may be notable and others may not be. It's about the individual and not the position.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2014 (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.

User talk spam - part II[edit]

User:Pitke reported about it earlier and that IP got blocked but now that user has came back from IP block 85.76.x.x..

Better explanation I wrote earlier: here --Texku (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we're having very good admins who are not even interested to read the whole AN... fu*k you..

Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Also: Category:Wikipedia_files_with_a_different_name_on_Wikimedia_Commons There is a HUGE back log of images that are tagged as {{nowcommons}} (almost 2500). We need some admins (if anyone is available) to help out with this backlog. I know this isn't as mission critical as other parts of Wikipedia, but when over 100-200 new images are transferred daily, this backlog is only going to become more and more difficult to tackle. Some notes to those interested in helping out (these are mistakes that I have made previously, and this list is shamelessly stolen from Magog the Ogre:

A few notes before deleting an image as NowCommons:

  • If there are any old versions in the history of the image, they should be moved to Commons as well. There is a bot specifically for this task: toollabs:magog/oldver.php.
  • Please make sure to relink any files which are on Commons under a different name.
  • Please make sure that the image has been transferred to Commons.
  • Please make sure that the Commons image shows proper attribution (i.e., it's not a copyvio for failure to follow attribution requirements).
  • Please make sure that the Commons image is not a copyright violation.

Please and thank you in advance! Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Now its over 4500 images! HALP! TLSuda (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
@TLSuda: I sent a note to Fastily on Commons about marking the images for deletion here so that they don't create such a backlog. Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I only recently noticed that Fastily was doing work locally again. Sometimes he's too good at his work...creates more work for others... TLSuda (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, that's usually the one thing he's very good at, eliminating work for the rest of us. Anyway, if he marks files with his username, I can use Twinkle (in conjunction with my script to check for multiple errors, multiple uploads in the history, etc. ) to delete hundreds at a time. Magog the Ogre (tc) 02:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: You're right, that is what he is usually good at, but since he left the project (understandably) he can't help where he did before. :( Also, teach me your wise ways of cleaning up in large quantities appropriately, please? TLSuda (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
@TLSuda: I have a script that I run ad hoc whenever I want to delete NowCommons images. I used to have it run daily on the Toolserver, but no one was using it, so I didn't bother to port it to Labs. Did you want me to set it to run one or more times per day? Magog the Ogre (tc) 01:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
That would be extremely useful! You're obviously much more experienced at this than I am, so any help that you can give me, that I can use in turn to help the project would be great. TLSuda (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It's now available at toollabs:magog/commons_images.htm. It will update twice daily. Originally, I only wrote the script for personal use, so I was very lazy about a lot of attributes (e.g., the overflow). Keep this in mind if something is bugging you. Let me know if you have any other questions. Magog the Ogre (tc) 03:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

We could always nominate more admins (through RfA) for this task. (Full disclosure: I got my bits this way.) OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This is very true. I got mine for WP:NFCR. Gonna look around a bit. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It's funny how so many potential admins said in their RfA that they want to work in contentious areas like XfD. Meanwhile, we have noncontroversial tasks like these that nobody wants to do. OhanaUnitedTalk page 22:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee review of procedures (CU & OS)[edit]

By resolution of the committee, our rules and internal procedures are currently being reviewed with the community. You are very welcome to participate at WT:AC/PRR. Information on the review is at WP:AC/PRR. The current phase of the review is examining the committee's procedures concerning advanced permissions (and the appointment and regulation of permissions holders). AGK [•] 11:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Participate in this review

Why is this only of interest to admins? Howunusual (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not, which is why this notice has also been posted on the Village Pump, the ArbCom announcements noticeboard, and at least 10 other pages. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Question: How many annual reviews of procedures are there going to be? Shoudn't the committee be focusing on ways to make cases run smoother and feedback to the community appear in more reasonable timeframes rather than muck around with the procedures again? Hasteur (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Hasteur Is there anything that says they can't do both? Setting up an RfC and then letting it run doesn't seem like a terribly large expenditure of time. Besides, the proposed changes, if they go through, would mean less work for ArbCom. If anything is going to help ArbCom work cases faster, having less other things to do probably ranks high on the list. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, why is Hasteur deleting my comments from AN? And doing so with no communication? And doing so deceptively, in the same edit as he adds his own comment? My comment was a one-liner, so it's no big deal, but I find the presumption heavy-handed and slightly rude. Howunusual (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
What you're describing sounds very much like what happens occasionally on a high-volume page like this when two editors edit conflict. Could that be what happened, as opposed to Hasteur deliberately deleting your comment? Did you ask him? BMK (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
yep. he deleted that too. it's the manner more than the substance that is the problem. Howunusual (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent answers, need clarification[edit]

Hello. I nominated the article Boxxy for its 2nd deletion afd, and I wish to notice the individuals who have granted any kind of !vote or !comment on the old afd. I would not be notifying only the !delete or !keep crowd, but every single person on the old afd. I have asked multiple administrators on the help IRC, and I have been receiving conflicting answers. The general responses have been:

  • That the consensus in the old discussion was delete, and that I'd be notifying 'mostly the delete crowd with some keep collateral' as one admin had put it. This may be a form of votestacking.
  • Since I had noted the older discussion was delete in the nomination, I'd be biased in going back to the old afd to notice editors.
  • It would also not look good considering that I am a strident supporter in its deletion, and that the old consensus was to delete.
  • The amount of notifications that would be given by me would be up to 60 editors, and may count as "spamming" them.
  • Some of the editors may be inactive.
  • That it would be alright as long as the message is neutral and only one is given per user.

I also asked in a {{help me}} request on my profile, located here where User:Acalycine was gracious to help me out, but I think that it's a bit more complicated and wish to tread with caution.

Why I decided to ask here instead is because of the lack of consistency in administrator response. 4 different administrators, 2 said I could do it, and 2 said that I couldn't. Any advising or commentary would be greatly appreciated by administrators, as I do not wish to be blocked for possible canvassing. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • My singular opinion is that it is fine as long as you notify everyone, and you do so in a painfully neutral way. "There is an AFD that you might be interested in as you participated in a previous AFD on the same subject (link). (sig)" As long as you don't inject opinion in the notification and tell everyone, I can't see how that violates canvassing policy. Dennis Brown |  | WER 22:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I think it's fine but I wouldn't bother -- the previous Afd was five years ago so many of the editors may not even be active. Less work and you don't have to worry about whether its an okay notification or not. NE Ent 23:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course, but since the current discussion is dealing with some of the main points raised in the old discussion, I think it's necessary to notify them. I am only trying to find the most uncontroversial way to do it. Tutelary (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I'd make the notification as boring as possible. "You previously commented in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boxxy. This is a courtesy notification of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boxxy_(2nd_nomination)." NE Ent 00:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
That would be fine? Even though I'd be notifier maybe 30-60 editors? (just browsed through the old afd). As long as it's something like that, entirely neutral, and I notify everyone, it would be OK? Tutelary (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Would notification such as this still be neutral if the first AFD had been affected by canvassing? Peter James (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
WP:CAN doesn't make any mention of that when I look at it. Tutelary (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
That forces the community to second guess the motives of the person who then does notifications later. As a rule, I would avoid renotifying after the first event was noted for canvassing, for if it went to ANI, it is enough in the grey area that there is no telling how it would be perceived. ie: It depends. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
So you're advising me not to notify them? What about editors like Mr.Z-man who in the old afd were strongly opinionated? Wouldn't they qualify under the Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article criteria of WP:CAN?

I am going to start sending the notifications to every editor who participated in the old afd, in approximately 4 hours. These 4 hours will be used for admins who immediately see a problem with the situation that I've described to tell me to not go through with it. However, given the two responses that I've seen here, it is OK to notify all users of the old discussion about the new discussion, as long as it's done in a neutral, non selective manner. Tutelary (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Consider using Template:AfD-notice for notifications. Since it's a template nobody can accuse you of using biased wording in your notifications. And it saves you the trouble of coming up with something yourself. You might also consider only notifying people who've edited in the past couple of years, or avoid notifying blocked editors or anyone with a "retired" template. -- Atama 17:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we get some eyes at an unblock request?[edit]

Resolved: User has been unblocked. NE Ent 10:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Another editor and I agree that a review would be useful for the block of Sceptre (talk ·