Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263

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

Noticeboard archives


Jesse Clyde Nichols[edit]

Copied first two posts from Archive262

Last couple edits (by an IP address) seem like a personal vendetta against the article subject. Some of the recently-added material is readded stuff I tried to delete before. Not sure what you guys want to do about this but I'm not interested in a slow war with an IP, so your participation would be welcome. Townlake (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Two edits (in a row) by a single IP, 4 days ago, with minor to moderate WP:NPOV issues. I'm not sure this is the beginning of a "slow war." Don't forget to assume good faith. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
It's discouraging to get an AGF scolding under these circumstances, dude. As I predicted, the IP came back and reinserted all their POV stuff, still unsourced. I'm sure not going to keep reporting stuff like this if I'm just going to get dinked to "assume good faith" about POV warriors. Townlake (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Blocks here are to prevent immediate damage, and with no edits by an IP for days, it won't happen. If you feel the article needs protection, then there's a place for that the panda ₯’ 08:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
"Now that you've filled out form WP-123, go fill out form WP-456 in the protection office on the fourth floor. But before you file that police report, are you sure you've assumed good faith about the guy you're reporting?" You guys know why good volunteers stop contributing their editorial energy to Wikipedia, right? Townlake (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Any admin who blocked an IP that hasn't edited for days would be violating their admin rights. At the top of the page is a set of links to the right places to ask for action - even at this point, WP:RFPP would be declined as it's not performing current protection. Timing is everything, sorry to say. We're janitors, not police or judges the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your civil tone in your replies. I note in passing that the "janitor" analogy doesn't reflect the true power admins here possess. Janitors don't have the power to ban entrants from participating in activities, policemen do. Alas, too many of the police here prefer to sit on their hands and claim to be janitors. And the project suffers. In fact, I am here as an actual janitor, trying to clean an article to Wikipedia standards and attempting to report mistreatment of project property to the police. The fact I'm getting nowhere is no individual's fault; it reflects a problem with the project's more general attitude toward adminship. Townlake (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Are we sure a current editor can really have much of a personal vendetta against someone who died 64 years ago? I've seen vendettas against people who died 30+ years ago, but not many on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Some still idealise the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, and they tend to have vendettas against Abraham Lincoln. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There was also a recent report about an editor who had a personal vendetta against Jefferson Davis. The American Civil War was 150 years ago, but continues to inflame passions on both sides. More generally, the history of race relations in the United States continues to inflame passions. As William Faulkner said: "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past." Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Interesting. I think anyone who feels they and theirs were substantially oppressed might feel such inflamed passions for a long time, but those whose forebears merely participated in such a conflict might not. Thus I can't think of any Englishman who feels particularly strongly about anything to do with the various much more recent Boer Wars (English interest in them is mainly centred around the incompetence of their own commanders, a common theme in that era), but that may well not be the case for some Afrikaaner inhabitants of the northern parts of modern day South Africa. And neither Englishmen nor Russians care much about the actions of the other side in the Crimean War, except in as much as the area is now in the news again. 19th century and earlier disputes are well remembered and commemorated in Northern Ireland whose populations were severely impacted at the time, but the rest of the United Kingdom (whose forces were involved) does little to note them except in history books. Most Englishmen feel neither regret nor much interest that the American war of independence succeeded, whereas Americans (naturally) still consider it very important. The Franco-Prussian War presumably inspires no passion at all in modern day France and Germany, whereas the two subsequent (and related) larger wars over similar territories are much better remembered. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
This discussion is both interesting and relevant. The IP address editing this article seems to have a gripe with racism in past Kansas City area real estate transactions. If the IP could source its statements about the practices it connects to Nichols, the statements would surely be relevant to understanding the article's subject. Legally-sanctioned housing discrimination on the basis of race is an ugly part of America's past; ideally, we don't fight the same wars repeatedly because we remember the ugliness of those already fought. Townlake (talk) 06:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Editor reverts closure of RfC due to disagreement with outcome[edit]

I closed this RfC (started on 11 April and posted on the Requests for Closure board) five days ago as no consensus, with the rationale you can see here. The editor who started the RfC did not like the close, and started a discussion on my talk page yesterday, where I explained the decision twice. The editor has now reverted my close of the RfC, claiming "wrong conclusion made about discussion". Can someone else review. Thanks, Number 57 17:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed the discussion and your closure and found that you were right to close this as "no consensus". I have reclosed the discussion and left an explanation about the heraldic aspect of the debate. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Number 57 18:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
@Number 57 and De728631: And he now tried to rewrite closure to have the desired result [1]. It's getting a little disruptive now. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. It might be a good idea for another admin to have a quiet word with them about their behaviour. Number 57 15:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave a message. GiantSnowman 15:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-addition of material post-RfC in Stefan Molyneux[edit]

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

A 34-day long RFC about using the term "philosopher" in the lede of Stefan Molyneux was opened last month. After a certain amount of discussion (and a request for closure on this noticeboard), the RfC was closed here at 11:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC). The term was then removed from the lede. A few hours (7) later, the term was re-added to the lede here, supported by a non-English source. The term was re-removed and a talk page thread was opened on the new material. Then the material was re-re-added. In the meantime, the proponent of the new material has contacted the RfC closer, who does not seem inclined to reverse the RfC closing. With this background in mind, three questions are posed for this ANI:

  1. Should the immediate post-RFC version of the article be re-established (e.g., without the term)? This may be a moot point. Three editors (User:Thivierr, User:N-HH, and OP) have expressed criticism of the post-RFC addition of philosopher. The addition has now been reverted. – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  2. Should the results of the RFC be changed?
  3. Assuming that the results of the RFC not be changed, does the new material justify a new result?
S. Rich (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Still waiting on a reply from the closer on his talk page about some points I think he missed in evaluating the close. This ANI notice is premature, disruptive, and a direct violation of the non-interaction request that I've asked the poster to adhere to with regards to me, as he has a habit of singling out certain editors and subjecting them to various forms of process-trolling. --Netoholic @ 02:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I posted a notice of this ANI on Netoholic's talk page as a courtesy to ensure s/he knew about this discussion. It is regrettable to see the posting characterized as trolling. It was not until after I had started a BRD on the lede issue that Netoholic said anything on the article talk page about contacting the closer of the RfC. Since Netoholic said s/he'd pursue other remedies if the RFC result was not changed and since RFC closings are rarely changed, it was entirely appropriate to open this ANI. – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Requesting closure review of Stefan Molyneux RfC[edit]

Closure unanimously endorsed. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:24, 28 June 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.

This is a request to review the close at [2] to determine whether the closer interpreted the central question, consensus, and policies incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer here. Here are the problems I have with the handling of this closure:

  1. The closing statement is only a single sentence, worded incredibly weakly, and provides no elucidation of the closer's thought process as he evaluated the close. It seems to be a quick-and-dirty close statement that did little more than do a raw count of votes, as it does not address some of the critical discussion points in any detail. In particular, he does not address:
    • if WP:RS/WP:V policies were applied either correctly or incorrectly with regards to the key national newspaper and book sources
    • if any of the opinion-based votes were disregarded due to failure to adhere to WP:ASSERT (Assert facts, not opinions)
    • the relative weight he gave to certain arguments over others.
    • "The paradox of excellent sources" (how the most scholarly sources are also very unlikely to call the people they cite by the common name for their occupations).
  2. The central question as posed was "Question: Should Molyneux be called a "philosopher" (without qualification) in the lede of this article?". The closer misinterpreted this as "central question, which was whether he should be described as a philosopher or not". Fundamentally, these are two different questions, and if he misunderstands the central question, then its likely many other factors were misunderstood. Since the central question posed was about qualifiers, the closer would need to specifically gauge that question, which it seems he did not.
  3. In subsequent conversation, closer admits that "there was no agreement" in the sub-discussions about exactly what the proper qualifier should be. This should result in the RfC at a minimum being closed as "No consensus".
  4. This RfC close does not agree with precedent set at a much more intensive one at Talk:Ayn Rand that was about a very similar central question (and an extensive closer statement). Since the key sources use different qualifiers, then consensus was to exclude them and use the most generic term, and expound in the body text.
  5. The potential professional harm that can come to the subject. Molyneux self-identifies as a philosopher, and that is corroborated by national newspapers widely considered reliable, books, and several other secondary less-reliable sources. If Wikipedia takes a formal stand against that self-identification, especially when no sources have been provided to refute that, it could be seen as a severe harm to his professional reputation. No one has provided any formal standard from any scholarly or authoritative philosophy source which would counter his self-identification.

It is my feeling that because the closing statement was insubstantial and the closer seems to misunderstand the central question as worded, that the close was handled without due care, and should be overturned or at least set to "No consensus". Thank you for your assistance. --Netoholic @ 09:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a note in response to point two, I did not misinterpret the central question at all. Netoholic has conveniently omitted my response to his original accusation in the discussion on my talk page. Beyond that, I think a wider review of the behaviour at this article is merited. Number 57 09:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't know for sure, but I do wish you'd been clear in your original replies. The way I read those, it seems you did misinterpret the question because you described qualfiers as a "sub-discussion" rather than the central question. I think your later reply was to cover the mistake by saying you left off two words (arguably the most important ones). I'll leave it to others to read the replies in the order you gave to make their own judgment. -- Netoholic @ 10:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
No, there was no mistake. I described the qualifiers as a sub-discussion because the RFC states "Place any discussion, including discussion of alternative terms, or proposed qualifiers (such as have been discussed here on talk) in the Threaded discussion section below." The RFC itself was a straight yes or no on whether he should be described as a "philosopher" (without qualification) in the lede of this article. Number 57 10:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse close: Mr Molyneux can call himself a philosopher all he likes, but his "self-identification" as a philosopher does not mean that he is considered worthy of scholarly interest by actual professional philosophers. I just checked JSTOR and PhilPapers: if Molyneux were considered important by philosophers (as opposed to, say, libertarian activists on YouTube), there would presumably be mention of his thought—hell, even his name—in academic journals of political philosophy. There are no such mentions in any of the JSTOR-indexed journals. Perhaps we might find mention of him in books published by academic presses by some well-known philosophers... oh, wait, no such luck. Google Books does list him as being mentioned in a lot of those books that reprint Wikipedia articles. So there's that. Given the absurdity of the question, the brusqueness of the close is perfectly adequate. He is notable as a libertarian writer and Internet broadcaster. But he does not have any discernible influence on mainstream academic philosophy. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    This reply seems to be a vote in the RFC, rather than a review of the closure. Even still, its incorrect, as even a quick Google Scholar search shows journal references to his work. A longer list is available at User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Journal and paper citations. The last comment is a bit silly... is someone only a musician if they are played or have an influence on "mainstream" music? --Netoholic @ 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, yes, those well known philosophy journals,, and some random Wordpress blog. Right up there with Noûs, The Monist and the Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Can you cite anything that you would be able to put into an undergraduate essay without embarrassment? This kind of tendentious nonsense has no place on Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    The search link includes some non-relevant links mixed in with the journal citations, sure, but that's just noise. On the User:Netoholic/Molyneux#Journal and paper citations page is a citation by "Subotić, Siniša" - a doctoral dissertation that makes extensive use of Molyneux's philosophical book UPB. I would say this is even better than "an undergraduate essay", and its certainly not embarrassing in the least. --Netoholic @ 18:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse close An ample number of editors carefully evaluated the entire issue and all relevant issues, and the closing admin went through and made an appropriate decision. Netoholic then added this useless source, where an organization gives a profile a person they're hosting at an event. Such profiles are often self-written, or written to promote the subject. We wouldn't expect them to invite people to watch a debate of a "self-described philosopher" as the Globe and Mail calls him. The problem here is User:Netoholic will never accept any decision that doesn't conform to his views. Let it go, move on, and when there are actual new reliable sources not considered, there can be a discussion, and after that, perhaps a change in the future. Netoholic has to learn that he doesn't personally own the article. --Rob (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    Rob is an involved party and a non-admin, and should not be voting in a closure review. -- Netoholic @ 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse close – Netoholic's arguments are weakened by the fact that s/he added the newly found material a few hours after the closure. Worse, when Netoholic's change (supported by the newly found material) was reverted, s/he persisted and sought to add the "philosopher" description 2 more times. A far better course of action would have been to post the newly found citation on the talk page and ask for commentary as to whether it supported an addition of "philosopher" to the lede. Had s/he done so, I think the answer would be the same. E.g., editors would agree that the material did not support a change. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    S. Rich is an involved party and a non-admin, and should not be voting in a closure review. -- Netoholic @ 17:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
As is obvious to most, there is no policy for this contention, no policy whatsoever. Netoholic is rehashing the same, feckless arguments. – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse close - There is a clear lack of consensus for the proposal and even a consensus against it. I cannot see this being closed any other way. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 17:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    I will also say that non-admins have as much right to an opinion regarding this close as anyone else. Being an admin is no big deal. This is not a vote but a place for people to make their opinions known. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 17:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    This is not a place to re-hold the RFC though. People who voted can comment, but they should not be misrepresenting themselves by voting as if they were not involved. Also, the point of a closure review is to get comments from non-involved, experienced admins. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    This is a new discussion about the closure, it is not about the RFC. Someone involved in the RFC can have any opinion about the closing. This is not a vote. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Netoholic, are you sitting down? Good. So, here's the thing: the horse? It's dead. So, Endorse close, and if User:Netoholic is -- again -- unwilling to understand and follow the clear consensus, he or she should be prevented from engaging in further vexatious disruption. --Calton | Talk 17:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    Calton is a non-admin, and should not be voting in a closure review on AN. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, horseshit. I was wondering what pathetic rationale -- based on your ample track record -- you would gin up to disqualify yet-another endorsement, but this one has to take the biscuit. So, here's another page you should be reading. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    Please stop telling people they should not be voting, this is not a vote and being an admin does not give you special authority.
    You are asking for the review of an admin action, admins are reviewed not just by admins but by the entire community. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse close, of course, for reasons painfully obvious to everyone but Netoholic. Additionally, Netoholic should be aware that continuing to agitate for contentious labels on biographies of living individuals, when the clear majority of independent sources do not use the label, is disruptive: if you continue this fool's errand, you will most likely end up sanctioned. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    What is your basis for this accusation? If you limit the list of sources used in the article to just the most reliable (the independent major national newspapers The Times and The Globe and Mail), their descriptions of him ALL include the use of the word "philosopher". Why these significant sources are being disregarded is perhaps the core, perplexing issue here - but no one has call to accuse me of wrong-doing by following what these well-regarded sources say. --Netoholic @ 22:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    That's not quite accurate. The Times calls him an "Internet philosopher" and the Globe and Mail calls him a "cyberphilosopher". BMK (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    We're both right. "Internet philosopher" is just a statement about where he works - its not some alternate type of profession. Its like saying "bakery chef" or "London author" or "Army doctor". I'd be satisfied to have the article say "internet philosopher" if people like, but that option wasn't strongly suggested by anyone. --Netoholic @ 23:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. I read it that both descriptions were used to differentiate him from an actual philosopher. They are both mildly denigrating from a mainstream POV. BMK (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    "Bakery chef" is also mildly denigrating in certain ways as it indicates a slightly lower (or at least more specific) status of chef. If 3 major newspapers described someone as a "bakery chef", so would we. "Philosopher" was chosen because it avoided the question of the variety of qualifiers found in the major sources, but also agreed with his primary self-identification and most of the lesser sources. Frankly, varieties of "philosopher" seems to be used as often as "author" or "speaker", but people seem to treat "philosopher" with some extra controversy for reasons that are neither consistent nor correct. Its very easy for editors with particular POVs to apply subjective standards as it suits them. All I seek is consistency. If a source is reliable and calls him an author, it is reliable when it calls him a philosopher. I'll also note that as of my timestamp, [[internet philosopher]] isn't even a thing. -- Netoholic @ 04:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    No, "bakery chef" is simply a more-descriptive version of "chef", like "real-estate lawyer" or "nuclear engineer". On the other, adding "Internet" to a job title is, outside specific technical categories, more like adding "self-proclaimed" or so-called". I also notice that Molyneux gets Google hits for "self-proclaimed philosopher" or "so-called philosopher", so perhaps we should throw those in, too. --Calton | Talk 08:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse close. I do not have strong opinions on this topic, so I did not vote in the RfC. However, as far as I can see, the evidence was considered and rejected by a majority of participants, all of whom used policy-based arguments. The close looks legit, and I don't see any policy-based reason to overturn it. I suggest that Netaholic drop it before he exhausts the patience of the community, which looks like a very real possibility if he continues this path. It's not easy to walk away from a debate you're convinced has gone completely wrong, but sometimes you have to. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
You are quite right about Netoholic coming close to exhausting the patience of the community. In this most recent edit s/he has added "host of the online philosophy show" to the lede. This is an attempt to do an end-run on the RFC results. Along with this edit, s/he has added a quote by Jeffrey Tucker back to the lede (whereas the discussion is against positioning Tucker in the lede). Lastly, Netoholic has readded Philosopher categories (which were removed when the philosopher description was taken out of the lede). I think it is time to bring out the boomerang. – S. Rich (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I moved the show description, it was always present in the lead and not a subject of the RfC - It was redundant in the previous first sentence, but appropriate now since "philosopher" (the SOLE topic of the RfC) has been removed. The show description has NEVER been a topic of dispute as it already existed.
This is getting out of hand now. I try to make edits which satisfy several concerns at once, and now have to deal with harassment and tattling every edit. Is this going to be your takeaway from this? Can I not even try to make edits that balance all concerns? Tell me know, and I'll go take a wikibreak. -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Except that you haven't addressed the actual concern, the overwhelming consensus -- on- and off-Wikipedia -- that he's not actually a philosopher. Instead, you're attempting new and varied ways to GET AROUND the actual concerns. --Calton | Talk 08:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This edit also tries to sneak in the "philosopher" tag, albeit outside the lead, in the section re Brazil. The persistent game-playing that's going on here in a seeming bid to work around the RfC in every which way they can, along with the badgering of every person who dares to comment here – as in the original RfC, where Netoholic not only responded to nearly every single contribution but declared, as they are doing here, that comments and contributors should be discounted or dismissed and even followed nearly every contributor to their own talk page to pester them about what they had said on the main talk page – suggests that their sticking to their declared semi-retirement might be an idea. Otherwise, action to bar them from the page might be the next step. N-HH talk/edits 08:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I tried to be so sneaky by using the precise wording of the source in a place OUTSIDE the lede (which was the only focus of the RfC). you all win. I've been piled on far too much for my taste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netoholic (talkcontribs) 08:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It is time to close this thread. Per the above comment ("you all win") and this comment on the article talk page, it looks like Netoholic is accepting of the RFC closure and the community consensus. – S. Rich (talk) 17:10, 28 June 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.

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

Requested addition to Template:Noticeboard links[edit]

Could an admin please add "Extant Organizations", noticeboard found here, to Template:Noticeboard links in the Articles and content section (organized alphabetically)? It's full-protected, so this is an admin-only task. SilverserenC 20:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Under "Articles and content"? Miniapolis 23:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I should learn to read better :-); done. All the best, Miniapolis 23:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A bug in edit messages[edit]

Looks like a fairly common section edit summary. Werieth (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, that's the section name. VanIsaacWScont 05:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC closure review: Coat of arms of Mauritius[edit]

(non-admin closure) There is consensus that the original close and the re-close were entirely appropriate. The nature of the original RfC question asked the community to 'choose between two options'. It is abundantly clear that neither option was deemed to be the ideal solution, based on participation in the threaded discussion of the original RfC. Therefore the result of "No consensus" is correct. There is also consensus within this closure review, and associated discussion, that Kingroyos acted inappropriately in reverting the original closure as an involved editor. Re-factoring the edits of others, to alter the point of view expressed therein, is always inappropriate and policy in this regard is absolutely clear. Bellerophon talk to me 19:18, 7 July 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.

I have started a closure review for Talk:Coat of arms of Mauritius#RfC: Which coat of arms should be used? (permanent link).

  1. 26 May 2014: Armbrust (talk · contribs) closed the RfC after an WP:ANRFC request for closure post I made.
  2. 27 May 2014: Kingroyos (talk · contribs) undid the close, writing in the edit summary "i will have to invite more users to discuss it, sorry for the lateness".
  3. 28 May 2014–11 June 2014: Further discussion occurred.
  4. 20 June 2014: Number 57 (talk · contribs) closed the RfC after a second WP:ANRFC request for closure post I made.
  5. 24 June 2014–26 June 2014: Kingroyos discussed the closure with Number 57 at User talk:Number 57#Coat of arms of Mauritius.
  6. 25 June 2014: Kingroyos reverted the close, writing in the edit summary "wrong conclusion made about discussion, there is clearly no support to use Escondites COA".
  7. 25 June 2014: Number 57 asked for review of the close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Editor reverts closure of RfC due to disagreement with outcome.
  8. 25 June 2014: De728631 closed the RfC, writing in the edit summary "reviewed and reclosed; I concur with Number 57 that there is no consensus for either version".
  9. 26 June 2014: I restored Number 57's close, writing that "This RfC was independently closed as no consensus by two admins".
  10. 28 June 2014: Kingroyos edited the close, writing:

    The result of the discussion was: consensus reached. The question here is to choose the best one between the two COA which is available, whether it can still be improve later is a different matter and what specifically need to be change is still unclear. Among the issues raised, it was noted that Escondites COA had a wrong Shield and Banner, there is a clear consensus that the new COA is closer to being accurate as among users who ask for improvements, they did mention the new COA was still better while no one supported Escondites version, and there were votes for Kingyoros' work. Kingroyos (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  11. 28 June 2014: Armbrust reverted Kingroyos' edit to the close.
  12. 28 June 2014: GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) wrote on User talk:Kingroyos:

    If you disagree with the decision of the RFC, fair enough; but please file a closure review at WP:AN. You should not revert or change the close. If you continue to do so, then your edits will be considered disruptive and you will be blocked from editing.

I have opened this discussion to allow uninvolved editors to review the close.

Please consider Kingroyos' summary of the consensus and Number 57's and De728631's summary of the consensus. Cunard (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Endorse closure I see no fault in the original 2 closures. I think Kingroyos just needs to accept the outcome and not try to change the closure of a debate he was involved in. Both versions have issues and there is not consensus to use either, this is a perfectly acceptable outcome. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 20:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Future timestamp to prevent premature archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Completely unacceptable to revert a close by an independent admin when you've been involved in the discussion. Having looked at both closures, I concur with both and find them both comfortably within admin discretion. Jenks24 (talk) 11:42, 1 July 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.


The page has been salted by Diannaa. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article has been to PROD, REFUND, AFD, CSD for recreation twice, and now a "new" user has recreated the article with what seems like copyright infringement in it, as it matches the old copy (The older AFD'ed copy, not the CSDed copy). The original talk page still exists, with the bot placed "AFD was delete" template, dated 10 days before this one was created. Anyhow...I closed the AFD as delete so I probably shouldn't take action myself. It has already been deleted 5 times, 3x by me.[3] Time for fresh eyes and methods. Dennis Brown |  |  WER 23:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Perhaps time to create protect as well? — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 02:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Note the quotes around "new" above, and the other concerns, such as copyvio. The issue is that I've been involved to the point that I don't want to give the impression of dominating/owning that topic, which is why I'm asking another admin to review, without my opinions being injected in. Dennis Brown |  | WER 12:56, 1 July 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.

FYI: The reference converter seems to be shut down[edit]

NAC: Seems like something that would better be discussed at WP:VPT, as it effects all editors and not just admins. BMK (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've been told there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:VPT#No_more_reflinks BMK (talk) 06:50, 1 July 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.

I just saw the following error when visiting both and

"Good bye Toolserver

As of July 1, the community run Toolserver was shut down. My tools weren't aligned with the Wikimedia Foundation's priorities, so they didn't make the transition to Labs."

In my opinion, this is a valuable tool that should be retained, not disbanded. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Background: VPT Feb 2014. Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
"The foundation employee have calling 24 TB excessive (it's not) and are not working with me." Anyone know how much the WMF has spent on Flow and VE so far? --NeilN talk to me 03:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Reply - I only hope that the tool will promptly be replaced with something equivalent... --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know which employee who reputedly said that, but that seems to be a gross simplification. I do remember discussing the topic with Dispenser about this, and I remember telling him that 24 TB is a significant chunk of the space available to Labs (our disk space is somewhat constrained and expensive to increase because it lives on a highly redundant array of commercial-grade disks and not on consumer devices), but also that he should discuss this with the Foundation to see if they could allocate the resources to support his tool.

    I've also offered to help him analyze other methods of storage for his data (24TB does seem very inefficient for storing some 20 million external links – since it represents over a megabyte of data per link) but he has not offered further details of his architecture or engaged in discussion on how it could be adapted to Tool Labs.

    Tool Labs remains open for anyone who has the desire to port/adapt/rewrite the tool. — MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Any chance of an on-wiki (public) discussion on a dedicated page where the technical issues can be aired (if Dispenser wants, of course). Automated assistance for referencing is vital. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I fully concur. Reflinks is a big time saver. Sam Sailor sup>Sing 04:48, 1 July 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.

Yes, there is a backlog at RFPP[edit]

But more than that, can we get some regular admins who'll take a look-see and clear some of the backlog every so often. I think it'd be terrible if we let AIV get into a similar state so we should also make sure RFPP also doesn't continually backup requiring a rally to mops for the admins here. Just would like something pro-active but I know, other backlogs far longer, it'll get done at some point, fair points both. tutterMouse (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[edit]

There is a viewpoint that all links are bad and evil. I make no comment on this.

There is also some considerable work going on (by either 'bots or editors) to remove all of these and to leave the links unarchived. In many cases, the link were long archived via and have only recently been changed to use

There is little issue with replacing links by links to another archiving site, such as However is the removal of such links (and not their replacement) considered to be acceptable?

Is it credible to believe an editor who removes such links, and claims "they will be bulk replaced in the future"? Professionally I'm a coder, I build tools to do such work - no way would I work that way. It's far easier to remove and replace an archive link for a single link at a time (and most importantly, knowing that this link needs to be archived). A bulk operation in the future would be tantamount to scanning each and every WP EL, then determining those that are deadlinks (a serious amount of 'bot work) and then adding an archive link. Such a process is technically ludicrous, compared to replacing as encountered, one-by-one.

This issue is growing in dramah. It would be useful to all concerned to get a clear statement ASAP as to our policy on how these links are to be replaced, and what's acceptable behaviour around them.

Some backstory is here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC) permalinked the backstory. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually one does not need to check if the links are dead, proactive additions of archive urls before they die is OK too. Just because you think one thing is easier than another doesnt mean everyone thinks that way. As I have told you before stop stalking my edits and causing drama. Werieth (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I'm supportive of being serious with links. However I do have some concerns over the complete removal of citations. It seems to me that such cases should worst case, be replaced with a link to the original URL, so someone can try and dig up a copy archived somewhere else, or may be use the details for the citation where they exist to see if it exists elsewhere. If the tools being used can't do that or there's no desire to visit to find out the original URL, I suggest such cases be left until someone is able to deal with them. Of course if there's another reason to remove the citation, e.g. it's not an RS or it's a copyvio, then it can be removed as it always can be. Edit: In some cases even though the only URL may be an URL, it's possible the original URL is working.Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
They're being removed from articles, but not article histories. There's ways for bots and semi-automated tools to find articles that used these and figure out the replacements. The temporary lack of archiveurls is less an issue than "supporting" the problematic links. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
And Ive got about 80 snapshots (all articles that use links) if anyone wants it for historical purposes. Werieth (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
No-one is suggesting not removing the links. However they also ought to be replaced with acceptable archive links. The best way to do this is at the time the link is removed. The idea that this is somehow easier, or even practical, by trawling through article histories is ridiculous. Just do it the sensible and straightforward way. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
We're treating the links as damaging as links to offsite copyright violations, and thus the repairing is a step that can be done after the fact after we've remove the potentially damaging part first. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Are we? When was this established? I took part in the RFC and was supportive of cracking down on but don't recall copyvio being much of a concern and a quick check seems to confirm it wasn't. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"We're treating the links as damaging as links to offsite copyright violations,"
Why? They aren't. Have you not read the RfC? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I notice that Werieth has completely removed at least one entire reliable source citation (including cross-references to it), with the justification being only to remove a link to an archive. This is really not appropriate. I don't know how many times this has been done, but it is damaging Wikipedia by converting well-sourced content into unsourced content. There is no requirement that all citations must have online links. Please see WP:OFFLINE. Looking in the user's history, I see lots of edits that may be taking similar action, and several objections on the user's Talk page. Such actions need to be immediately halted, checked, and reverted. I do not object to removing links to an inappropriate archive, if the archive in question has been determined to be a problem. But I do very strongly object to completely removing citations to reliable sources instead of just removing or replacing such links as a remedy for that. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
When the .is link is removed from that citation in that example, there's no way to trace the source; links should never have been used alone but always as secondary to the main URL that they capture. So no, that's not a reliable citation. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
That was a citation referencing The Smithsonian Institution is an extremely well-known and reliable source. Moreover, there is no requirement that sources must be online at all. Please see WP:OFFLINE. This is really poor behavior. Sources are not required to be clickable. If there is a problem with a source, that is a different issue than if there is a problem with an archive of a source. Problems with the quality of sources should be discussed as an entirely separate matter. Citations definitely should not be removed in a wholesale fashion just because they were previously linked to an inappropriate archive. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The citation lacked information on what the original publication was, making the citation a failure of WP:V. I am not saying Smithsonian is unreliable, but the citation - w/o the .is link - is. Yes, I'm sure someone could search for it on google or at the Smithsonian website and get the url, but that needs to be done, and the danger of the links is more a concern to put that off until later. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
But how's anyone going to know to do it when the whole citation is gone? Yes many of these examples aren't perfect citation practice, but it doesn't mean it's beneficial to remove all trace of them from the active page. There are so many options that are far better. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I still think in cases where there's only an URL, we should keep the URL until someone at least re/adds the original URL. You can even disable the URL so it's not clickable if you want. But yet, it would be better to at least keep the details even if the URL is removed (preferably noting in the citation that the URL was removed to make it easier when someone is trying to work out what it was). Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The are not appropriate to keep as they are found, removal immediately is appropriate. But I will agree that what could be done is that if links are being removed, that the diff of the removal could be archived on the talk page in a header that points to the issue, and provides the diff, so that editors can know what was removed and then be able to fix from that. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Removal of a link is different from removal of a citation. Removal of a link may be appropriate. Removal of a citation is not.—BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The citation without a URL to the original publication is a broken citation, and its removal is fine. Just saying that the work was published at is not sufficient to meet WP:V; it would be like pointing to a article that appeared in the NYTimes without given idea of date of publication. Could the original publication be found? Sure, but that's work for editors to correct. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
There are problems with that perspective: 1) the edit summary here was extremely misleading because what appears to be a removal of a link is the removal of a complete reference, 2) here we had an exact title, exact author name, and publication by an extremely reliable source and we know that the source actually existed because it had previously been linked to an archived copy, so complete removal under those circumstances is just nuts, 3) the proper action for an imperfect reference to an obviously reliable source is to work to improve the clarity of the citation or request for someone else to improve it, not to just delete it. Simply converting sourced content to unsourced content is damaging. Here the page wasn't even left with a citation request. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the date of publication was provided too. If there had been no link, this would have been judged a completely acceptable reference. Here is the edit: [4], and I think it is, objectively, damage to the encyclopedia. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
??? Sorry but that doesn't make much sense. is bad for many reasons, but they do on the face of it have the stuff you'd normally expect from an archive service. You can obtain the original URL simply by visiting the link and taking it from there, which is what I did. (And IP added it to the article before I could.) As I said above, if you don't want to visit to get the link, while that may be understandable, it's not a good reason IMO to remove the citation and make it difficult to recover or even know it existed. (It's easy to see someone properly citing something, us ending up with an link only, the whole citation being removed, and someones careful work remove when someone recognises there's no citation and removes the claim.) Note also in a case when the details are fairly complete, as it was here, you can potentially find the citation without visiting Heck you could probably use a Google cache or similar copy (edit: of the link) to find the original URL and set up your firewall or browser such that you don't visit anything associated with while doing so (or just look at the HTML file from Google or whatever). Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If there is a problem with the clarity of a reference, that should be raised as an entirely separate matter from the appropriateness of its archival. Wholesale removal of references is not the appropriate action. Wholesale deletion of citations to sources is very damaging. In this case there was clearly an article that was being referenced. It was an article that was published by the national museum of the United States – a very highly regarded institution of the highest academic reputation – one of the highest quality sources possible. Just deleting the reference because of its archive location is very damaging. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
How many citations has Werieth removed from articles because they were archived somewhere undesirable? Such actions need to be immediately halted, checked, and reverted. If there is some different problem with a citation, that is a different matter and should be tagged, discussed, etc. – not just deleted because of the archive location. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Werieth is continuing to remove archived links, with no effort or credible intention of restoring them, even as we discuss this. A GF editor would at least have held off during the discussion. Yet again, normal policies and behaviour just aren't something that Werieth feels ought to restrict a super-editor like himself. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I have just seen a reply to my comment on Werieth's Talk page that does not appear to be an appropriate response. The user seems to have proceeded to make multiple edits per minute while this discussion has been ongoing. I suggest an immediate block to put a stop to this until this settles down.BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Strikethrough above, because I actually don't see further problematic edits after 15:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A question, since I am new to this issue: The RFC closure reads to me as if there is absolutely no consensus given for removal of anything but links, that is, URLs. Does anyone disagree? --j⚛e deckertalk 17:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Depends on how literal you want to be. Certainly things like "archiveurl=" parameters that generate URLs would seem to be covered, and a citation that relies on a URL is pretty useless after the URL is deleted.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I'd be that literal, but at the point where the title of a reliable publication, a title, an author, a date, and a vsiited-date were provided, I think removing all of those seems ... a stretch from the RfC. I don't know if anyone is arguing otherwise, the single example above--well, I haven't done the research to know if it's just an error, I AGF, but the single example above strikes me as not plausibly backed by the RfC. *shrug* --j⚛e deckertalk 18:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Examples aside, the reason I first raise the issue (which was before any existed) was because of this thread User talk:Werieth#Do_you_mind?. Werieth appears to state there that they would remove an entire citation just because it uses the citeweb template. The citation has a lot of info. If you look carefully, it becomes clear the wrong citation format was used, since it's a journal article or similar.
The wrong template is unfortunate, but removing this apparently good RS just because the URL happened to be is surely harmful. It's claimed that cite web requires a URL. This would make sense, however I don't see any error here [5] so I'm not sure what's what.
Regardless, there are many options to deal with this, such as adding a dummy URL with a quick explaination. Or using a temporary copy of cite web which doesn't require URLs. Or even just, as I keep saying recovering the original URL. (As I mentioned in that discussion, I do have concern the URL is copyvio, but that's a seperate issue.)
What's surely undesirable is removing this apparently goood citation which is primarily using the wrong template and doesn't even need a URL just because the URL was While this didn't actually happen Werieth said that would have happened if they'd noticed what template was being used which makes it almost as problematic. I didn't look at the cite news case, but it sounds like another example.
And yes, I still don't get why we have to have such extensive discussion, when we could just recover the original URL and replace but I guess I'm used to that on wikipedia by now. The funny thing is, as I also said in my first post, I've been strongly supportive of completely removing for a long while, I agree there's no way we can trust them. But I'm starting to see why people are so concerned when such a simple solution i.e. replacing with the original URL, is ignored. And instead we have good citations entirely removed or would have been entirely removed just because someone messed up the citation slightly and didn't include the original URL.
Edit: Had a quick look at the contrib history for cases where a larger amount of info was removed. From that I found [6] where another citation was removed. While the info isn't great, it was been enough to find the citation even if the original URL wasn't recovered. In this case, the original URL didn't work at least, but someone found a replacement from the authors blog [7] which could have been found without the info that was removed as I said. (Although I still fee it would still be better to keep the original URL i.e. [8] to aide in the search for a replacement.) One good thing, in cases where the full citation format is used, it seems that at least the original URL is kept [9].
Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
"and a citation that relies on a URL is pretty useless after the URL is deleted" I don't see how that's the case. I think consensus before anyone had even heard of is clear, even if a link is dead and never likely to come back, it's worth keeping around in case someone is able to find an archived copy. Perhaps if someone makes a thorough effort to find a replacement URL but isn't able to find one and particularly when there is an alternative citation it's worth removing such citations entirely, but it's definitely not something that should be automated. AFAIK, this consensus hasn't changed.
As me and others have said above, equally questionable to remove a citation just because the only URL is As I've said several times now, including the third comment in this thread, IMO the best course of action would be to rescue the original URL (which probably shouldn't have been removed, if it was) from using the tools being used to remove them. Baring that there are plenty of other options ranging from hiding but keeping the URL so someone else can resurrect the original URL, to removing the info completely but keeping anything else and preferably a note about what happened. For reasons I've explained several times now, it seems to me this is better than completely removing citations just because the only URL was when it's fairly trivial to recover the original URL from there, probably without even visiting if you're that opposed. In fact, my experience so far is that it's not even clear how many of these are dead URLs, it seems some people have unfortunately added as the only URL even when the original URL is still working, so even more reason not to remove these citations.
Depending on the depth of the citation info, someone may be dig it up from that. But even if it's a bare URL, it's probably better to keep it around to establish that there is a dead citation, someone just has to recover the original URL from While they're at it, they could potentially flesh out the citation info.
How many case are we talking about anyway? If people are really so desperate to get rid of any sign of that they can't tolerate keeping it in some fashion until someone gets around to recovering the original URL, I could probably do it if it's under 100 (entirely manually) if someone gives me a simple list.
Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
This affects 11584 articles currently. Its been quite a time frame already (~10 months) for people to remove the links. When possible I leave the citation in place, however in some cases the reference refers to a webpage (a online only reference), where after removal the reference is no longer viable and I remove it. If you want to wade through all the pages with links I can provide you a list, but removal of the links is required via the RfC. With the current restrictions on the existing links are problematic. Werieth (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
To be clear, you're stating there are 11584 articles where the citation will be removed by you because it contains only a URL? As I've said repeatedly, this is my main concern here so I presume we are keeping things on topic as you replied to me. Also how sure are you of the 11584 count. As it stands, there are several examples where you've erroneously removed a citation as 'online only' when it's been demonstrated this was inaccurate and the information you removed was enough to find the citation even without the URL. BTW, how many additional articles are there. The 11584 figures seems very high, even if there are 90k other articles which use but where it is not essential or not the only URL, this would mean it's ~10% of articles using where you need to remove the entire citation Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
There are a total of 11584 (at the last count) of articles that contain links. I havent gone through all of them to find out how they are used yet. Ive changed my tactics and there should be minimal cases where the entire reference will need to be removed in the future. Werieth (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
In that case, can you keep things on topic. I've said multiple times I only really care about the cases where you plan to remove the entire citations with some more limited concerns when you remove the only URL. If you aren't able to provide a number of how many cases you plan to remove entire citations (or at least the cases where is the only URL), that's okay. But your number seems highly misleading in the context of a discussion which was about cases where you removed entire citations. And in reply to my comment where I indicated my willingless to deal with these specific cases myself.
It's good that you've reduce the number of cases where you will remove entire citations, but IMO not good that you think you will still do so. Can you explain why with these indeterminate number of articles where you still plan to remove entire citations, you aren't choosing another option like keeping the information (hidden in the source if necessary) but removing the link so someone can recover the original URL since it sounds like you're unwilling or unable to do this yourself. Or just completely leave these last cases where you feel you need to remove entire citations.
As said before, worst case it'll be better to leave the citation even if you feel it's useless without any info on the URL. Let someone else can work out if it's valid, or even go through the history, find the URL and use that to recover the original URL. History has shown you're judgement on the citation being useless wasn't entirely reliable, perhaps it would be better now, but perhaps not.
As I've mentioned, I also have a more minor concern about removing the only URL even if the citation isn't removed since the original URL can be trivially recovered from and the original URL can help to find other archives, it seems more harmful than necessary.
So an even better course of action would be a 3 stage removal. First remove the simple cases, where there is a valid URL (whether it's a working one or not) and the is only there an an archival URL. You can include in this first pass those cases where the full citation format is used so you're able to recover the original URL from the URL which you are already dealing with suitable.
Once you've done so, the community could consider whether anyone is willing to deal with the remaining cases where is the only valid URL, probably by recovering the original URL from If the numbers are still so high that no one is willing to deal with it, you could propose removing the one and only URL to while keeping the citations, except in cases where you feel the need to remove the entire citation for unspecified (at least here) reasons. There's a fair chance someone can then deal with these last few cases manually rather than you removing the citation. (If 10 months later and still no one has dealt with these last few cases, I might understand your complaint.)
Yes of course it's unfortunate that none of this was done sooner, but many of us can't code so have no options for such automatic edits. And while it's great that you're volunteering your time to deal with this, you still have to listen to the community and should remember to involve it (e.g. by proposing such mass edits before carrying them out, with particular regard to stuff that is likely to be controversial like removing entire citations or even the only URL).
Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
As I stated the number of cases where full removal should be minimal. I have run across multiple cases where an URL is invalid (redirects to the base domain) and recovering the original URLs is now no longer possible. In cases where that occurs removal of the citation may be needed depending on what factors are in the citation and if there is enough to salvage it. Im not going to list every step I have planned because it will probably change depending on what I come across as I progress. Your sort of along a similar track of what Im planning. Werieth (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Personally, I am still not sure the attitude about removing citations is sounding adequately conservative here. IMHO, removal of the citation information should be avoided if there's anything more than a bare URL that leads to a dead link. It is much better to leave a "citation needed" tag to prompt improvement of a citation than to convert vaguely sourced material into completely unsourced material. I also have not noticed an expression of real interest in repairing the damage already done. The need to remove the archive links does not sound like that high a priority to me, personally. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with BarrelProof here. I don't think it's a good idea to remove citations at all, even if you believe the original citation cannot be recovered. There are a few factors at play here. One is that as BarrelProof has hinted at, it's possible your belief that there is inadequate data to recover the citation is incorrect. The fact that you historically removed at least 2 or 3 references where you were completely incorrect doesn't give us much reassure. Even if it's a total bare URL link to, and the link doesn't work anymore, it's possible the full URL was replace with the citation so a search through the history will find. Even if this doesn't work, it's possible that a search for the URL will find info on what it was. And while I understand it's difficult for you to be sure what cases will be involved until you start, I'm sorry, but I don't think we can trust you to handle these cases to the satisfaction of the community considering the history here. One thing that is clear is that there's no reason you cannot promise to not remove citations. In the end, you still haven't given what I would consider a good reason why it's so urgent you deal with these cases concurrently with the rest so really the simpliest option would be to leave them and then see if they are feasible to be dealt with manually by someone else when you're done. Alternatively, I'd personally be fine if you did deal with these cases, but only by hidding the URL. If absolutely necessary, you can hide it by removing the URL completely and doing something like <! ID -->. But let me repeat for the hundredth time, I would oppose any removal of entire citations. Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know how many times it happened, or the exact circumstances of each, but this user made many many edits very rapidly, and removing a citation completely when providing a WP:Edit summary that only refers to removing links to an archive is misleading. I found other edits ([10] [11]) that appear to have done this, without looking very hard. Citations are not required to be linked. A citation does not "depend on" a link, although linking is desirable. See WP:DEADREF and WP:OFFLINE. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
But they have to have enough detail for a reader to be able to locate without too much effort the original source, and if we are taking a piece of work that only existed online, the URL is required for that. This is different from the case where we did have a formerly working URL that is dead - you usually can verify that URL had information at one point if its not already at Wayback Machine. Without the URL, you're lucky if that can be found, and of course OFFLINE doesn't apply to online-only sources. And if it was an online version of an offline source (eg republishing of journal content by its owner) and there's no pointer to the original offline publication we still have the same problem. A reference that is only just a title, author and publisher, once the URL is stripped off, is not a usable ref for us even considering DEADREF and OFFLINE. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
But isn't the precise point that Werieth has been removing cases where the citation without the URL was sufficient either for wikipedia purposes, or at least for another editor to find a replacement URL, or even the original URL which is sometimes still working.
Seperately, there's the question of why it's so important to remove any trace of, when you could leave some info in even if it's just the ID for the page and let someone else visit to recover the original URL (the ID can be hidden in such a way it's unlikely anyone but an informed editor will visit or Google/Bing/whatever to find the original URL).
Since the 10 months was brought up by Werieth, let me throw that back. It's already been 10 months. So would it really be that harmful to leave some trace of in some fashion in those cases where some people feel the need to remove the entire citation (or better yet, all cases where is the only valid URL), for at least a few month for, hoping that they can be dealt with perhaps by recovering the original URL from
As I said above, we don't even have any idea of the scope of the problem, so have no idea whether it's plausible for these cases to be dealt with manually. The only case I can see for such urgency would be if there was really copyvio concerns but no evidence has been provided for that.
Nil Einne (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It's the balance between the harm now that links can pose, and the harm to the small fractions of articles that, as Werieth has described above, the recovery of the original source is presently impossibe (and thus removal of the entire citation). Just guestimating from Werieth's edits, that's at most 10% of the articles that have links, or about 1600 archives. For us, we'll take the hit on having missing sources on 1600 articles, the damage there far outweighed by reducing the risk of the suspicious activity that does otherwise. My take from past actions if we found a site used in a good chunk of articles to be found of copyright violations later, we'd do the same think - wipe the links (and references if needed) to remove the immediate threat and worry about damage control on citations later given that WP is a work in progress. All that is needed is a list of articles that have been affected, and ideally the diff when the links were removed. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, my bot request to do that while leaving a centrally organized list of every removal, complete with the article tags, has stalled.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible with what you have to at least generate the list of affected pages prior to the immediate closure of the RFC that had links? (which would not require BAG) Further, might be helpful to go off that last and add the latest diff where links were removed ? (again, no BAG). This would allow Werieth and others to continue what they are doing and provide a means to track the removed .is links. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Not 100% but probably close to 99.99% of articles that have had an link in them at one point the last 10 months. User:Werieth/Sandbox Werieth (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It would take a few hours of work. Chartbot is regular expression driven so retargeting it from to is theoretically simple, but you know what they say: if you think that regular expressions are the solution to your problem, now you have two problems.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm just suggesting it as to quell the complaints that Werieth is removing references without leaving "traces" behind (when really they still are, we're not history-reverting), so that we can possibly put a not on affected pages about the issue and where they can find a diff with the removed references. But this is only an idea, I believe that the edit summaries I've seen Werieth leave behind should make it easy to find those changes in history alone. --MASEM (t) 16:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I think such removal of references (by a dumb-bot) should be mentioned on the talk page of the article. I often look at talk pages, but I do not read every edit summary unless I am looking for a specific word/term. The talk page section could be labeled with a link to the last functional version of the article. -- Kheider (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I proposed doing both the central list and the per-talk-page comment.—Kww(talk) 21:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
But what harm? As you've mentioned, the numbers may be very low. Personally I think 1600 is unlikely. Remember that in the earlier cases, Wereith was removing citations when they clearly should not have done so because there was sufficient information to recover the original citation, and the URL was working anyway.
They've now promised to be more conservative which is good (although doesn't mean the legitimate earlier concerns were invalid). It may be that these cases could be dealt with in under a month, and let's not forget as dodgy as is, we have no evidence they've ever actually done anything to their pages causing harm to readers (realisticly, it wouldn't surprise me if way more people have been hurt from visiting Pirate Bay and other such sites by following a link on wikipedia and then being fooled by an ad then will ever be harmed by links on wikipedia) such that a few hundred links are that dangerous.
And as I've said, there are many options besides removing the citation even if you do feel an active link to the URL is that harmful. For example, the URL could be hidden. You can go even further and only add the ID in a hidden comment like I've suggested repeatedly with a specific example above. Heck you could go even further and do something like <!-- AISID XXXXX-->. I don't see how this can be so harmful. It seems very unlikely a random reader will know what the AISID stands for, if they even ever see it. Only those experienced in such matters, who can decide for themselves whether to visit the AISID page and try to recover the citation. A talk page message would also be helpful although IMO it's still preferable to leave something in the article.
In any case, I fail to see how having such hidden information which may aide the original citation is any real harm. I would note having the info in the history is inadequate without at least some info that was there. Remember that realisticly, if someone finds uncited information, they're rarely going to look through the history to see if it was once cited but the citation was removed so the fact it's in the history is of little help.
P.S. Personally I feel we should not be removing all traces of when it's the only URL even if it's not working and there's probably enough info in the citation to try and find it but I'll leave that for the RFC.
Nil Einne (talk) 06:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The removal of links to sites spammed on Wikipedia is perfectly acceptable, and a long-standing practice. WP:USEFUL is an argument to avoid, not an argument for continuing to allow spammers to benefit from Wikipedia. Archived links are a minor convenience only. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd like to express again my concerns about the mass removal of these links. I understand the RfC closed with the consensus to remove the links. My only involvement with this issue is a while back when the Pink Paper website went offline, I went and replaced all the links to it with both and links—preferring the former, but often using the latter. These are on primarily LGBT-related articles including LGBT-related biographies—a topic area which is often very poorly sourced and which has historically had poor sourcing. I managed to replace all but three of the links to the Pink Paper site with links to either or I'm frustrated that the hard work I went through to replace these links and to ensure that Wikipedia remains verifiable and reliably sourced is being undone because of the poor behaviour of others, including the management of If the community has decided that ensuring that BLP articles do not have links to a reliable but offline source, that is the prerogative of the community—but I have to express the fact that I'm disgruntled about the undoing of the hard work I've done in good faith. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Dab solver[edit]

Another backlog...[edit]

...this time at Category:Requests for unblock. If anyone feels like releasing some of these folk back into the wild (or just telling them, "no"), feel free to head on over there. Yunshui  10:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Dealt with a few, commented on others. Ever since the new way of updating that page, I no longer get notifications, so whoever implemented the new templates/methods: massive fail. the panda ₯’ 23:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I need advice[edit]

While responding to the last backlog, I blocked two users instead of protecting the page where they were warring. Upon levying the block, I gave simple conditions for unblock: one was "don't edit the page for 24 hours" and the other was "if the other guy agrees to these conditions". One of the users, Jack Sebastian, has requested unblock (and thus shows up in Yunshui's link), but the other one, Darkfrog24, hasn't edited since the block was imposed. Is it ever right to unblock one participant in an edit war while leaving the other blocked? Jack says he'll leave alone the page in question (oathkeeper), so I want to unblock him, but I'm unsure whether it's fair to Darkfrog to unblock Jack, or unfair to Jack to leave him blocked just because Darkfrog hasn't done anything. Nyttend (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why one person's block is conditional upon another user's actions. Is that SOP? Seems like Jack met his requirement, and the block is supposed to be preventative, so he met his obligation. If the other guy doesn't comply, then why is Jack punished? Unless condition #2 cannot be withdrawn for some reason, I'd bite the bullet and strike it from both user's block notice. TBH, maybe condition #2 was not in anyone's best interest. I smell a teachable moment. Rgrds. -- (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Edit: If after 24 hours, Darkfrog has not responded, then he has implicitly agreed not to edit the page for 24 hours and should also be unblocked. The conditions have effectively nullified the block. :/ Rgrds. -- (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
You're right. I've unblocked Jack (and left him an apology for making him wait) and reduced Darkfrog's block to a net of 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


No reason to perform WP:REVDEL as per the ruleset provided to admins. Nothing even to suggest how WP:OVERSIGHT could help, but they have been directed there the panda ₯’ 20:49, 3 July 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.

Hello! Please remove my ip and my editing history in the article "Vigilante". Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the request, but actually, you removed it yourself; the article is precisely the same as it was before you edited it. Nyttend (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I want to remove my ip address if possible. (talk) 23:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
All edits must be attributed, whether reverted or not. If there's a good reason for this request, you'll need to be more specific (see WP:REVDEL) the panda ₯’ 23:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
For attribution purposes, this request is sufficient. We only need to attribute because it's made mandatory by the CC-by-sa license (it's the "a" part of the name), and the copyright holder can waive that requirement. We still shouldn't do it in this case (unless good reason be provided), but that's because of the unrelated aspects of the WP:REVDEL policy. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
1. My edits not made any changes to Wikipedia, except for the removal of material, and then recovery.
2. I do not want to record my ip address in the editing history in this article.
Find the cause in accordance with the rules of the Wikipedia, please. (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You should have registered an account so that your IP was not recorded. As yet, I see no valid reason to scrub the IP address that was recorded. If there is something that you do not wish to disclose, you should privately email Wikipedia:Oversight with the details.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Virtually no change from this ip address was not. What is the meaning to save? I need my ip address, not for Wikipedia, but that did not look for it in the search on the Wiki. it is a request... (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Ummm, you're spreading your IP address all over this thread, you know. BMK (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Replace it with some registered user. I myself can register and transfer all on my account. This is not a joke, please. (talk) 02:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Remove at least two meaningless changes in article "Vigilante". That will be enough. (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I this is nothing but a content issue? Think before you edit. As I said, contact oversight with the details if you have a valid reason for the scrubbing.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a issue that if in the editing history in this article will see this IP, I'll identified. For you, is it a matter of removing the two nonsensical edits and all. Regards, (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have already looked up your IP as I am sure many reading this have. As I said, think before you post and you are seriously not thinking by continuing this openly. It is drawing even more attention to you. Streisand effect.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
You can watch my IP and add it to the blacklist. Hiding calculated not from you, but from specific individuals. (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Please contact oversight. If you have a valid reason they will remove the IP and all subsequent edits made by you from the IP address. My only concern is that you seem unwilling to follow advice being given. I suggest and propose this thread be closed as unproductive.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

You should firewall your website until you are finished it. Chillum (Need help? Ask me.) 03:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I do not know what oversight. Contact you please and remove only these two changes in the article. The article does not change. And the topic is closed. Replica Chillum I did not understand. (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Go to this link and tell them what you want. I don't actually think they'll do it, but maybe I'm wrong. BMK (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I am not a user, so the link does not lead anywhere. You ask them and redirect to this discussion. Tell them my respects. (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The results are reported here and delete branch forum in archive then. (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

There is an email address at the top of this page for requests to oversight, You can try that. Blackmane (talk) 09:09, 3 July 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.

3RR backlog[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring appears to be heavily backlogged. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for additional admin input at SPI[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ The IP claims he/she is not Akuri but has an IP in the same range as the 17,000 IPs which were previously blocked and so has to use proxies to access their account, which is allowed since they are not, apparently, banned. Future Perfect at Sunrise, who has a history with this topic area, removed a comment from the IP when they tried to defend themselves on the SPI page, calling it "trolling" which set off alarm bells for me. Could someone else please have a look at this? Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Is the above expressed correctly? The IP wrote "Yes, you're right that I'm the same person as Akuri." (diff). That diff includes two links to WO which I assume includes gratuitous attacks unrelated to the SPI. There is a large backstory that is not worth digging up, but if Future Perfect thinks there was trolling, it's quite likely to be the case. What is the problem? Do you want an IP-hopper who uses proxies and who will not operate from a single account to edit unencombered within the R&I area to re-open past battles (see WP:ARBR&I)? Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
My mistake. It is Akuri. The problem is that the acting admins assumed that Akuri was someone's sock because he/she was using a proxy. But, either the Akuri account was a sock using proxies to evade scrutiny, or it wasn't. If it was, there's no reason to block IPs that aren't proxies in connection to that account. If it wasn't, then the account shouldn't have been blocked in the first place. By acknowledging that the 101.0* and 110.32.* ranges really are Akuri's, Future Perfect seems to be acknowledging that the original block reason was wrong. But instead of disputing the original block, he's just blocked the default range as well. Something doesn't seem right here. Cla68 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Huh? It was always known that those ranges were Akuri's; if I remember correctly, he'd been using them even before he created the account. The socking suspicion was independent of his use of those ranges. It wasn't me who blocked him for that. But whatever he was then, he is now a blocked sockpuppeter; if he wants to edit, the only thing he can do is to raise an unblock request from his account through the usual channels. I removed his latest block-evading post from the SPI because there's nothing more to be done there; the moment he admitted he was the blocked user, the SPI's work was finished (except, as somebody else has reminded me in the meantime, in figuring out what to do with the one named account that hasn't been dealt with yet). Fut.Perf. 07:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

On the status of WP:RFCN[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names has more or less been inactive for months, with most requests being either simple matters that should have been handled at WP:UAA - there's a technically open RfC from December of last year (though it has been taken care of). It seems there are still people watching the page for when something pops up (me included), but very few people use it - either we've gotten really strict with blocking or really good at convincing people to change usernames. Is there still a good reason for it to be kept active? Ansh666 04:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

And, as if to prove me wrong, someone has posted something there. Well, question still stands, though. Ansh666 06:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it's a used board (more often than you seem to think), well-monitored, still-needed. Suggesting closure makes zero sense the panda ₯’ 08:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
It's been on my watchlist for around a year, it's barely been touched in the past 6 months. I do guess it is still necessary, though, given that issues do pop up. Thanks, Ansh666 09:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I've set it on my watchlist and will monitor it. Tutelary (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


User Sixpounder666666 wrote two or three times a foolishness over the photo. I don't want to happen it again, so please do something. --Crystall Ball (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Vandal blocked. In future, Crystall Ball, please take these kind of reports to WP:AIV. WaggersTALK 10:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

OK --Crystall Ball (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Enforcement of discretionary sanctions[edit]

I think a request for an enforcement of a sanction goes here? Not sure. Anyways, Toatec notified of topic ban here. Further edits here and here. --NeilN talk to me 14:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Fut.Perf. 14:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@NeilN: It can go here, though WP:AE is the noticeboard designed for it. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 15:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you to you both. I was confused by, "Should any editor ignore or breach any sanction placed under this procedure, that editor may, at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator..." written here. --NeilN talk to me 15:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I just clarified that detail. Hopefully actual clerks won't kick me too hard for editing their page. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Aaaand undone by AGK. *shrugs* ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  15:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

A quickie?[edit]

Hey rock and rollers, we could use a quick close at Talk:Black_Sabbath_(album)#Genres_revisited--the matter does not appear to be controversial anymore. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alain Riazuelo[edit]

Hello fellow editors. I was innocently digging through the abandoned AfC submissions when I came across the above page. I did an Internet search to see whether there were news reports about this person, and found some, but then I came across a page on the site (which is on the title blacklist so I can't link it) with some nasty content linking a person of the same name with controversial Wikipedia editing. Since I don't find anything about this using the Wikipedia search engine, I thought that I'd better check with some long-time editors before continuing in case there is some deleted history here of which I am not aware. I don't want to accidentally step into a pile of something unpleasant. If this is not the place to ask, please say what is. Thanks. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Motion: Use of advanced permissions by AUSC members[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) members are provided with the CheckUser and suppression tools in order to carry out their responsibilities. Historically, community appointees to the AUSC were discouraged from routine or regular use of either tool. Since appropriate procedures exist for excluding arbitrator or community AUSC members from cases in which they may be involved, there is not a compelling reason to continue to prohibit use of the CheckUser or suppression tools.

As such, members of the AUSC are explicitly permitted to use their advanced permissions for non-AUSC-related actions as allowed by the appropriate policies surrounding each permission, as members of the functionaries team. This is without regard to the presence of a backlog or time-sensitive situation.

For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Motion: AUSC term extensions[edit]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

An extension to the terms of the current members of the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) is authorised until 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC), to allow a functioning subcommittee until appointments are finalised. AUSC members may choose whether they wish to stay on until that period or retire with an effective date of their original term's terminus. As always, the Arbitration Committee thanks the community Audit Subcommittee members for their service.

For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Closure of RfC: Should Tesla's birthplace be changed?[edit]

Closure endorsed. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:55, 8 July 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.

This is a request to review the close at RfC: Should Tesla's birthplace be changed? to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. Also relevant discussion: Tesla's birthplace which contains one of the most important source, Nikola Tesla's statement that he was "born in Croatia".

I also point to WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS since I will cite several things from there.

I feel that the consensus, or that there is no consensus to change the version was decided upon unfounded objections, poor arguments. ALL of the presented sources have been disregarded with this consensus. I feel that many comments were not made in good faith and that those comments should be disregarded. "...administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith.". A lot of people have expressed their views on geopolitical situation (which by itself is beyond the scope of this discussion) and have not presented any source to support their claims. I plead many times to support their claims with sources, and that was not done, in fact sources that directly contradict those geopolitical analysis were presented. I regard those comments not made in good faith not only because they move this discussion in the wrong way but they are unsupported with any source. Also, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any).". I feel that ALL of the presented sources are in favor of my suggestion. With this consensus ALL sources have been disregarded with poor arguments (see discussion with closer). I feel that there is not a single source presented that disputes the edit suggestion. Also, the consensus have been reached on highly subjective basis of the explanation that "no change is needed, the present wording if fine". I feel that much stronger arguments were disregarded with subjective opinions, unfounded objections and unsupported claims. No amount of unfounded objections, subjective opinions and unsupported claims can overturn ALL of the presented sources that point the other way. Since the argument is quite long i would suggest you point your attention to the presented sources (also note that some sources presented by MrX are dismissed). Also point your attention to the summary of the sources listed in the article (which quality is indisputable) located at the end of this discussion. Asdisis (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not explain in the article that his birth place is a complex matter and describe what information the sources provide without coming to a conclusion? Chillum 18:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not think that it is a complex matter. The only dispute is whether Croatia should be explicitly mentioned. Asdisis (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure. Reliable sources are all over the map with regard to how they describe Tesla's birthplace. There are reliable sources that say he was born in Croatia, Serbia/Servia, Montenegro, Austria, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, and so on. Thus, we must use editorial discretion to determine how best to inform our readers. Consensus has determined that it is best to omit the geopolitical subdivisions of Tesla's birth country, including Croatia, military frontier, and Lika. This leaves us with the consensus wording "Nikola Tesla was born... in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia)."- MrX 18:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. Sources are quite clear. All sources that negate Austrian Empire(Austro-Hungary) should be dismissed. I have clearly dismissed them in the discussion and no one, including you had objected. No one had disputed Austrian Empire as Tesla's birthplace, including you. In fact we all agree that Tesla was born in Austrian Empire. Thus, I feel that introducing unclear sources with obviously incorrect place of birth accompanied with conclusion that "reliable sources are all over the map" so the present wording should stay, is not done in good faith. It may be considered as a deliberate act to dilute the argument. Also, the conclusion that the present wording should stay can not be derived from that argument. Sources are not all over the map. Apart from dismissed sources, ALL of the rest is quite clear. Also note that the sources listed in the article itself are quite clear. Quality before quantity. The quality of the sources listed in the article is indisputable. The quality of sources that clearly list inaccurate birthplace is questionable. I gave the reasoning why the present wording should be edited. I haven't seen any reasonable argument why it should stay. I saw highly subjective opinions that "the present wording is fine". Your argument that "Consensus has determined that it is.." is logically flawed. This whole request disputes that consensus thus you can not base your claim on the premise that the consensus has determined something. Apart from this logically flawed argument, and highly subjective opinions there is no reasonable argument or source that supports the present wording (except Britannica). On the other hand there are numerous sources pointing the other way. Also I would like to mention the source mentioned in Enric Naval's comment who stated indisputable quality of one source. That source does indeed has the present wording and yet is the most important source that supports the suggestion for editing (see Enric Naval's comment and my answer). Asdisis (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The close is correct in upholding the status quo, so I endorse it to that extent. However, the RfC question appears to be about the wording in the infobox, which the close doesn't address. Place of birth in infoboxes in normally given on WP using the town and then the political state that the town was in at the time. Some sources might not follow the same convention, but that's a red herring as far as the infobox goes. Formerip (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The RfC was also about the wording in the article body, specifically the first sentence under Early years (1856–1885).- MrX 21:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
To a limited extent, maybe. But the actual question posed was about the infobox, and the close didn't directly answer it. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Are we reading the same RfC? There was no mention of "infobox" in the request at all.- MrX 23:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
The wording that the question asked to be changed came from the infobox, rather than the body of the article. Formerip (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse I read this RfC a week or so ago after it was flagged up in the requests for closure list (I declined to close it, as it hadn't gone past 30 days). There was definitely not a consensus to change from "Smiljan, Austrian Empire" to "Smiljan, Croatia, Austrian Empire". I did think there may have been consensus to use "Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire", but technically that was outside the remit of the question, and there were some continued weasling attempts to try and sneak "Croatia" by itself somewhere into the text, which may have killed that off. As a side comment, Asdisis' conduct in the debate was rather unbecoming, and they need to understand that they do not own the debate, nor decide its outcome. That's for the closer to do, and it was no surprise this ended up here. Number 57 21:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we all agreed that "Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire" is a better construct that the present one. I also supported several of Director's suggestions. However, sources are quite clear and Croatia should be explicitly mentioned. See my conclusion at the end of the discussion for explanation. Also, you may notice that Director is the only one willing to work on the consensus. With him leaving the discussion all that was left were unfounded objections. No one was willing to respect the presented sources or even suggest a consensus. People have only objected and lead the discussion in the wrong way, geopolitical analysis. I tried to reason with them. Although the discussion had moved in the wrong way, I tried to find sources that asses geopolitical situation of that time, including the sources that tell of national sentiment at that time, since the description of someone's birthplace does not have to strictly reflect geopolitical situation . I found several sources, which were disregarded with unfounded objections. Several times I plead those people who strongly objected to support their claims with sources. That was not done. Thus I regard those objections unfounded and not done in good faith. It's obvious that someone needs to disregard opinions and comments that were not made in good faith. As suggested by WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. Asdisis (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
"Yes, we all agreed that "Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire" is a better construct that the present one." ... did we? At the discussion is quite clear that "we all" agred not to change the present wording. FkpCascais (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, I should explain why I said that we all agreed. I and Martinevans123 were arguing that Croatia should be explicitly mentioned. You yourself have suggested "Having "Croatian" Military Frontier instead of Military Frontier in between Smiljan and Austria is already enough for precition.". No one objected to that. Director suggested to mention "Croatian Military frontier" several times, no one objected. I explicitly stated that I agree with that suggestion, however my objections went towards explicitly mentioning Croatia. Joy [shallot] also suggested "Croatian Military frontier", no one objected. Peacemaker67, also suggested "Croatian Military frontier", no one objected. 23 editor explicitly agreed with Peacemaker67 and Director(however he's not a major participant). Those are major participants and no one ever objected Croatian military frontier be mentioned. I can't asses the opinion of some editors, since the argument was not about mentioning Croatian Military frontier, so not all people have expressed their opinion. However I note that the 5 biggest participants have themselves explicitly suggested Croatian Military frontier and that no one had objected. Asdisis (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between not objecting and agreeing. The CMF was just mentioned in the discussions. You wanted Croatia instead of Military Frontier (or one of its sections, Croatian Military Frontier). You want more "Croatia" by any means, and you need to make a proposal with a precise edit and then see the result of your proposal. The only agreement reached by majority is that the current wording is fine. FkpCascais (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
My experience from editing for nine years is that sources can be found that align with pretty much every viewpoint possible (particularly on debates related to nationalist fervour), so I have no truck with people rejecting sources if they are not in line with common sense. However, I have a feeling that you simply don't get my final comments above. Please note Dennis Brown's comments below. Number 57 22:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
There is also a danger that someone initially writes inaccurate and highly biased construct that is impossible to change. I feel that the sources are rejected on Ad hominem basis. Asdisis (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Asdisis, your comments comprise the majority of the discussion, here and at that RFC. You made 62 individual responses in that RFC and I didn't count bytes, but I'm pretty sure it was well over half of the verbiage and possibly a record. WP:BLUDGEON comes to mind, as you seem to be invested in the topic at a level that is unhealthy for you and Wikipedia. I will pass on commenting on the merits at this time. Dennis Brown |  | WER 21:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
That was only a small portion of time i spend. Majority of the time I spent researching numerous sources. I supported every claim with a source. I presented majority of the sources in the discussion. I tried to answer every dispute, although many of them were not made in good faith. I tried to be helpful in every possible way. That is why I have so many comments. I do not think that WP:BLUDGEON is an accurate description. For instance, I quote: "They always have to have the last word, and normally will ignore any evidence that is counter to their point of view.". I did not ignore any argument, reasonable, or unfounded. I also clearly stated in the discussion that my good will to answer does not give any credit to unfounded objections. Yes, i do not think that WP:BLUDGEON in an accurate assessment at all, although I posted many comments. I think that every of my comments was done in good faith. I did not show any emotions, although some accused me of several misdeeds. Asdisis (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you did ignore a lot of trivial evidence counter to your POV. The fact that you instantly refuse to acknowledge that, and are continuing to post at an unabated rate, sadly confirms exactly this assessment in my mind. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not think I ignored any reasonable argument. Asdisis (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I created WP:BLUDGEON back in 2008, and this is pretty much what I had in mind. You've been polite enough, and I don't question your faith, but bludgeoning actually hurts you as people quickly ignore your comments after reading a few, and in fact, they may instinctively lean against you because it looks like you are too invested. That is the point of the essay, to help, not to scold. Dennis Brown |  | WER 00:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I do not think this is the time to talk about WP:BLUDGEON. I noted in this request that the discussion had been a long one and that you should point your attention to the presented sources. I think that pulling this question now can only lead to Ad hominem attack Asdisis (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, I wasn't wanting to offend, only help. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure as (Non-administrator comment). As I said when I declined the initial edit request, he was not, by own admission, born in Croatia. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that is an appropriate explanation on several levels. Firstly, it belongs to a different discussion. Anyway, I disputed your interpretation. I had not admitted such a thing. It's based on wrong interpretation. Furthermore, it gives too much credit to my opinion and disregards valid sources. Also, it leaves doubt that you even read the RfC that is being discussed here. Asdisis (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse As this is a review of the close, not RFC #2, I won't inject my own opinion of the merits and just look to see if the close represented the discussion as a whole and had no fatal errors. We allow the closer leeway in determining the weight of each !vote, guided by policy and common sense. With that in mind, I don't see any action that was outside community expectations when judging consensus. Dennis Brown |  | WER 01:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • CORRECTION I apologize, I provided a wrong link to the discussion with the closer in my initial post. I corrected it now, and I would appreciate if you would read it and make sure that this mistake had not influenced your decision. Here is the correct link again. This mistake also raises the question if MrX had even tried to read the discussion I had with the closer, since he would surly notice I referenced the wrong discussion. Asdisis (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Endorse summary and conclusion represent the participants' views. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 8 July 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.

Proposed indefinite topic ban for User:Memills from issues related to men's rights, broadly construed[edit]

Ok, I just have to say this is one giant load of crap from across all sides of the discussion. There are off-topic attacks on commenters, unfounded allegations on both sides, bickering, snide remarks ... unacceptable. Increasingly unacceptable is Memills badgering of a select number of commenters, so it's better to close this before they do themselves more harm. Yes, Memills has been disruptive in this specific topic area. Have they been disruptive enough to be indef topic-banned? Not yet ... probably very close, but not yet, based on the proof and the discussion below. Would it be wise for Memills to voluntarily withdraw from such topics before they are topic-banned? Very much so ... and as they have other interests, now might be a wise time to embark in that direction as I expect future similar discussions to this will end with a completely different result the panda ₯’ 00:33, 11 July 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.

  • @Memills: has been sanctioned no fewer than seven separate times under the existing community probation covering topics related to the men's rights movement. I think that some of his recent behavior demonstrates that he is either unable or unwilling to understand Wikipedia's policies well enough to productively contribute in this topic area - ever. One rather telling diff can be found in a recent section of his talk page where he asserts that a reception section for a prominent, generally well-regarded author is balanced/NPOV because it contains one positive sourced statement and one negative sourced statement. People have been trying to explain what Wikipedia's conception of a neutral point of view is to Memills for years, and it's incredibly telling that after seven separate sanctions and dozens of good faith attempts to explain it (and other policies) to him, he still either cannot understand them or acts in willful ignorance.
Since Memills has previously repeatedly skirted his previous topic bans, I believe it is reasonable to automatically convert an indefinite topic ban in to a permanent site ban upon one violation. Memills has enough experience with sanctions to know what is meant by a topic ban; if he chooses to disregard his topic ban he does so not because he doesn't understand it but because he doesn't think anyone will enforce it.
A full log of the seven sanctions previously imposed by no fewer than four separate admins for violating the MRM probation can be found here.
Here is a collection of diffs of Memill's edits that I believe display his inability to contribute productively, at least in this topic field:
  • With seven previous sanctions under the existing article probation and continued failure to follow or understand our content policies I don't see a reason why Memills should be allowed to continue to edit in this topic area, especially when he makes essentially no beneficial edits in the area. Describing an accepted academic field as "inbred" is a pretty solid sign that he is unable or unwilling to edit neutrally (especially when he does so on the talk page of a professor of that field,) and combined with the rest of his behavior demonstrates that there's really no point in letting him continue to edit in the broad field - all it does is waste the time of good faith editors. Keep in mind that these diffs are not a comprehensive evaluation of the issues in his recent edits, and don't touch at all on his seven previous sanctions, which included stuff like comparing editors he disagreed with about the men's rights movement page to radical Islamists advocating violence. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Kevin has gotten a little too involved in an intellectual disagreement with me. He apparently thinks that disagreements, including the expression of statements of opinion on Talk pages, are a violation of WP policies. In contrast, expression of his own opinions on Talk pages, or the expression of opinions by others with whom he is in agreement, apparently pose no such problems for him...
The best Kevin can come up with in the list above pretty much amounts to a rant about my opinions. He whines that Memills "declares," "describes," "seemingly suggests," "appears to think," "demonstrates." Where are the violations? Er... there are no violations of WP policy to which he can refer.
This is really a case of WP:HOUNDING and WP:INCIVILITY apparently in an effort to silence an editor with whom Kevin strongly disagrees (in violation of WP:CENSOR).
Uninvolved editors have previously noted Kevin's behavior toward me:
"...I do not agree with Kevin's treatment directed towards Memills. In this case I think Kevin is reaching, and looking for a reason to have Memills sanctioned, and to be honest it appears to be Battlegroundish behavior." --Kyohyi (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (search for Kyohyi at my talk page)
"...(note the) taunting [of memills] by Kevin Gorman... above in this section. --Pudeo' 08:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC) (search for Pudeo at my talk page)
Kevin previously initiated an ANI against me here which was declined.
For the background of what is really behind this ANI -- a personal disagreement between two editors -- see the recent discussions between Kevin and myself at my Talk page. Kevin also inappropriately continued these discussions on article Talk pages here (see, in particular, the collapsed section) and here. In these discussions at article Talk pages, I asked Kevin repeatedly to take his off-topic comments and disagreements with me to my Talk page. Instead of doing so, he continued the off-topic personal attacks on me at these article Talk pages. An uninvolved editor eventually closed a discussion because it was off-topic. And, I finally had to tell Kevin that if he continued, I would no longer respond on on the article Talk page (but that I would be happy to do so either here or at my own Talk page).
I suggest that it is Kevin's WP:HOUNDING and WP:INCIVILITY that, per WP:BOOMERANG, should be examined. Specifically, see previous ANIs against him by others with similar concerns here and hereMemills (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose Memills has gotten himself blocked a number of times, and certainly needs to tone it down, but the diffs you post above are evidence of thought-crimes against your own ideology, little else. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view here, as long as we all edit neutrally - you taught me that. As for his assertion that deleting Category:Violence against men is radical feminist propaganda, that was perhaps in response to the nominator who call the category MRA propaganda. so language has become pretty heated on all sides. Indeed, I've been called a misogynist and a shill for the MRA just for daring to populate that category and defend its existence, but no admins have stepped forward to sanction those who made those claims. I think Memills provides an important counter balance. Civility could be improved and he can be stubborn, like me, but ultimately I think he's a good force in bringing a different and useful perspective to our interpretation of literature in this extremely complex domain, where there isn't, in spite of our wishes, a single answer nor a single orthodoxy that is always right.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is a critical policy; either refusing to follow it or failing to understand it isn't some abstract thoughtcrime, it's directly disruptive. If you take a look at this diff and couple it with his edits to Kimmel's page, it is clear that for whatever reason he is unable to edit neutrally. There's nothing wrong with having a different point of view than another editor; there is something wrong with being unable to edit neutrally after the amount of time people have spent trying to explain policy to him. Seven sanctions and continued disruptive editing is a problem - there has to be a point where enough is enough. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose. This just looks like an attempt at censorship. Those diffs are just someone giving their opinion on various Talk pages. Howunusual (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note for the convenience of the closer: Howunusual has fewer than 200 edits across all namespaces as of when I post this comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman:, I'm going to ask that you strike that comment. Their edit count is irrelevant, they are entitled to comment whether they are a dynamic IP, SPA, or Jimmy Wales. Edit count is not proportional to knowledge.