Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive270

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Review of non-admin closure at Manual of Style/Icons[edit]

NAC: No consensus to overturn the close of the RfC. BMK (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2015 (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.

Would an uninvolved admin please be so kind as to peruse the discussion at WT:Manual_of_Style/Icons#The previous Formula One "consensus" and an editor's odd interpretation of it and review the Non-admin closure that has precipitated the confusion? The contested change has been made three times and reverted twice and there appears to be confusion as to the breadth of the result of the original consensus and the ambiguity left in the closing statement by the non-admin closer. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Paging @Technical 13:. I don't see any issues with the close, personally. Those who are edit warring against the consensus found in the most recent discussion should, as usual, take it to the talk page. HiDrNick! 17:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not criticizing Technical 13 - in fact I haven't participated in this RFC/discussion at all. It's just that some editors are construing the results of the proposal and !vote more/less broadly than others... The original "Formal poll" asked for editors to be "stating an opinion based on policy or guidelines in favour of or opposed to the use of flags to represent a driver's or team's nation in Formula 1 articles". Some editors (and the contested edit to the MOS) are taking the close to apply to areas other than Formula 1. Clarification and rationale would be helpful. If people are happy with Technical 13 making the clarification, that's fine with me – I don't have a dog in this hunt (my peeve is flag icons w/o the name/abbreviation of the nation, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish). I just felt the opinion of an uninvolved admin might shut everyone up so we can all get back to editing. Mojoworker (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pinging User:SMcCandlish who contested the close in December at User talk:Technical 13/2014/4#Non-neutral non-admin close. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I think that the close is over-broad in its interpretation. It appears to make a general statement about sports generally when the discussion was about Forumula One racing in particular, and the conclusion reached actually contradicts years worth of previous consensus discussions. Basically, the F1 editors lobbied very hard to get their way on this, and people who also really, really, really like flag icons are trying to misconstrue the questionable result of that one discussion as an overruling of something like 5 years of previous decisions against festooning articles with cutesy pictures.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  10:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Please stop adding these tags and clogging up the page. Allow threads to die a natural death, if that's what they're going to do.. Not everything needs a formal closeure. BMK (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
How about we post a comment here everyday until someone responds – that should keep it from getting archived. Seems clear that @Technical 13: has decided not to clarify his close (despite a cordial reminder on his talk page), so the ambiguity remains. I guess there really aren't enough admins to go around. Is it any wonder we're losing editors? I posted this here when a nascent edit war was developing. Wisely, @Jojhutton: reverted only twice. But, if this is archived without clarification from technical 13 or an uninvolved admin, it raises the additional question of what to do about the edit to MOS:ICON – should it be reverted to the status quo ante or left as is? Mojoworker (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I haven't decided to do or not do anything. My ex's 60+ year old father slipped on some ice in a store parking lot last weekend, broke three ribs, punctured a lung, went in for multiple operations to fix it, and has been in ICU half the week. Clarifying my close on a topic on Wikipedia has been at the very, very bottom of my todo list. I'll get to it in the next week or two when my mind has a minute to regroup and I apologize if I seem brash or uncaring, but in comparison to what I'm dealing with in RL atm, I really don't care. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 21:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries Technical 13. Quite understandable given your circumstances. Sorry if my frustration was leaking through into my post. Sadly, an admin could clear this up forthwith, leaving you to care for your family. Guess there are just too few admins. Or too many lazy ones? At least too few that will do anything that requires a little work. Someone on Dennis Brown's talkpage was talking about redirecting Chicken shit to ANI – I guess AN would be just as appropriate. If we can't come here for assistance, then WTF are we supposed to do? I realize admins are volunteers too, but if y'all aren't gonna do anything, then turn in your bits and let someone else do it. Anyway, take your time Technical 13, my gripe is not with you. Mojoworker (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyone can run for admin any time they want, you know Mojoworker, there's no need for anyone to resign and open up a vacancy ;-) Squinge (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In answer to Mojoworker's question, the default is always to revert to status quo ante. This non-admin closure has obviously been controverted, so there is no actual consensus on the issue at the heart of the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
A consensus close does not become invalid simply because someone disagrees with it. It's under review and as long as this review does not end with the closing rationale being overturned it remains valid. Tvx1 02:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I removed the "do not archive" template. This has been open for more than a month, which is more than enough time for someone to have formally closed it if anyone thought it needed to be closed. That didn't happen, so please allow it to die a natural death without prolonging it artifically. BMK (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact... BMK (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2015 (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.

Request for review of closure of AfD G. Edward Griffin[edit]

Withdrawn by requestor. Kraxler (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2015 (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 would very much appreciate it if an uninvolved administrator would review the following no consensus closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G._Edward_Griffin_(4th_nomination)#G._Edward_Griffin by Nakon. Griffin's notability as author of the long time business bestseller, Creature from Jekyll Island, and World Without Cancer, clearly qualifies his notability per WP:AUTHOR. Consensus included a significant number of qualifying keeps and few deletes. Thank you in advance.... AtsmeConsult 19:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If you think the AFD was closed incorrectly then you should take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review, though as no consensus defaults to keep, I'm not sure it would be worth doing. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Davewild. I wasn't sure where to take it. Considering this is the 4th AfD for the same BLP, (which may also make him "notable") Face-smile.svg, I was hoping to get a confirmed close to settle the issue. The consensus was pretty clear to keep. Sorry for any inconvenience, and TY for the advice. AtsmeConsult 20:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
OP request to close this Request for review.

Going to deletion review per above advice. AtsmeConsult 20:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


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

Urgent closure required[edit]

AfD closed and article snow-deleted by JzG. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone please close this and delete and salt the article in question? Tomorrow is polling day and this nonsense remains (in Wikipedia's voice) in contravention of NPOV and OR policies. Beyond the creator, not a single person has supported retention. Stlwart111 23:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Guy (Help!) 08:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Thumbs up Thanks for that. Stlwart111 10:04, 27 March 2015 (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.

Checkuser and Oversight appointments 2015: Voting on the candidates[edit]

Following community consultation, the Arbitration Committee is now voting on appointments to the Checkuser and Oversight roles at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Comments are welcomed at that page.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolve a bunch of copy/paste moves[edit]

In complete disregard of their actions' effects on Wikipedia, the South Dakota legislature recently renamed Shannon County, South Dakota to Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota, and as a result, we have a lot of pages that need to be renamed; most, if not all, were in Category:Shannon County, South Dakota or its subcategories. Unfortunately, someone's simply copy/paste moved a lot of them; I tagged {{Oglala Lakota County, South Dakota}} for db-move, thinking it an isolated occurrence, but then I noticed that several of the county's categories had also been copy/paste moved. Could someone please go through all pages with "Oglala Lakota County" in the title, delete all the copy/paste moves, and then move the pages to the correct titles? It looks like most pages in these categories have already been recategorised (properly), so you probably won't need to move anything except these pages themselves. Nyttend (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The 2 articles and the only template have been done; I did the head category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Finished all the categories. If someone can think of other pages which need doing, either mention in here or use {{histmerge}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding editing administrative archives[edit]

Hey, admins,
I'm unsure whether this is the correct forum or the Village Pump but I'll start here for now. Recently, an editor received a block, in part, for editing the archives of WP:ANEW regarding his case. Part of his strategy in his defense was to ask a lot of questions about the inappropriateness of this editing, but when I actually looked into policy pages, I couldn't find any place where it was specifically prohibited. Many editors use the {{aan}} notice on their own archived talk pages which prohibits editing archived pages. But when I looked at the WP:ANEW, WP:ANI, WP:AE, etc. archived pages, there is no template that states that these pages can't be further edited by users.

Now, I might have missed some place in Wikipedia policies and guidelines where this prohibition is stated but if I didn't, I think it should be mentioned as a practice that could lead to a block or that is discouraged. Can a bot place the archive template on all of the administrative noticeboard archived pages? If this is not possible, I could take on this project but I don't want to do anything without getting an okay...and seeing if there was an automated way to do it! Right now, I'm more concerned about placing warnings on these pages but it is also a change that should be written into Wikipedia policy concerning archived admin pages. Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Without any additional dtail, I don't think there is much we cn do. If the user is altering the archives for the purpose of making himslef/herself look beter and/or his/her opponents look worse, then there is clear grounds for a block. The main rule here is cmmon sense, and there is no way to judge the issue based on this rule just based on the details you gave. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
A while back, the archive bot would preferentially archive threads which had the {{archivetop}} and {{archivebottom}} tags on it. I believe that particular function doesn't work anymore with the retirement of one of the bots, but it makes for good clean up practice to close up threads that have (A) reached a consensus, (B) petered out, (C) run its course and the participants are just arguing or (D) blocks/sanctions have been handed out.
Archive threads do have the text "The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion". I gnome around ANI and AN a fair bit and where a close is uncontroversial, I slap those tags on. Closed threads should not be edited and offenders should be warned and blocked if the warning is not heeded. Editing an archived thread is basically tampering with evidence and it should not be condoned. Blackmane (talk) 23:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
In practice it happens a fair amount; there's no set policy on archive tags. NE Ent 02:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Time for a discussion on VPP? Blackmane (talk) 03:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It doesn't need to be spelled out. Written or not, it's common sense backed by a universal consensus and overwhelming precedent. The concept of an "archive" itself is self-explanatory—it's a place where discussions go when they're closed, and kept as-is for historical purposes. Obviously this site is a wiki so technically any discussions can be edited after they're archived. Doing this obviously falls under the scope of disruptive editing for reasons that shouldn't need to be explained, and it's absolutely important that we don't tolerate those actions. We're not a bureaucracy and don't need to tailor our written rules to cater to one disruptive editor who keeps falsely asserting he has no possible idea what he could've done wrong. The editor who provoked this thought is not a victim of being caught off-guard by an unwritten policy, he's been blatantly playing oblivious to every disruptive behavior he's exhibited despite a ridiculous number of attempts to explain our policies and practices to him in good faith. And even despite this, he was still let off with a warning to refrain from editing the archives, and he deliberately chose to ignore that warning and now continues to plead ignorance. It's ridiculous. Regardless,
    • WP:ARCHIVE explains the concept in detail. WP:ARCHIVE#Continuing discussions explicitly states that "archived discussions are immutable"
    • WP:CLOSECHALLENGE clearly explains the proper recourse for disputing closed discussions. Choosing to ignore that and edit said closed discussion instead simply allows for no excuse. Swarm X 03:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think those policies pages are quite unlikely to be seen by new users who are the most likely to try to edit an archived admin page. I've been around for a while and I couldn't find that sentence and I was looking for it. I don't think we can assume "common sense" will ensure editors will not edit archived pages considering that we have editors from a wide variety of countries, with varying levels of education and experience.
There is no question that editing archived pages shouldn't be done it's just that if we have warnings against doing this on archived user talk pages, it makes sense to place them on archived admin pages where these edits can have a greater impact because the issues are so contentious.
So, my questions remain, a) can a bot place a {{aan}} tag on past and future archived AE, ANI, AN, ANEW, etc., pages and b) if a bot can not do this task, is it okay if I do it? Liz Read! Talk! 14:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This really seems like a red herring issue. If it's disruptive editing, even on archived pages, it's worthy of a block. Elohim55 (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Sock of blocked user. BMK (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • So, it looks like no strong feelings either way if {{aan}} tags are placed on archived admin pages. Liz Read! Talk! 00:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Extension:Gather launching on beta[edit]

Hello, I am Moushira, a new WMF community liaison for mobile products, and I have some updates to share today :). So, Extension:Gather has been in development for a while and is now ready for beta launch on wp:en mobile web by next week, where mobile logged in users activating their beta features option, will have the possibility to create and share public lists of their articles. For more information, kindly check the FAQ. All created lists will be paginated at Special:GatherLists, showing the user name that created the list, list name, and the time it was created, and admins will have the ability to hide/unhide a list if an issue is flagged. The product is an early experiment in lists curation, and as it develops, the community can best define its moderation rules. For now, it has been made sure that all lists are viewed publicly and that admins have the ability to respond to any issues that might raise. I would have loved to update you earlier, but certain technical details were only solved recently, without which any earlier announcement would have been vague. Happy to answer further questions :).--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Um...do you think Wikipedia is an e-commerce website or something? I notice that this week is your first time editing in four years, and Wikipedia has definitely gone through a number of changes since then, but, well, if your answer to my question is "yes", it might be wise for you to read WP:NOTADVERTISING. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Mobile Wikipedia has many shortcomings in basic functionality and usability. It's a bit puzzling that resources that could have been devoted to addressing such problems were instead allocated to a nonessential add-on such as this. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Short Brigade Harvester Boris Mobile Wikipedia is still developing :). Testing new features is part of the development that helps analyze different usability models with Wikipedia on Mobile, and features like this aren't supposed to substitute the other basic functionalities that obviously still need development.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Um Erpert, not sure if you noticed but Melamrawy has (WMF) in their username. i.e They're a foundation employee. Blackmane (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was a little confused. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Blackmane thanks for giving headsup. I also added WMF before community liaison to help clarity and Erpert, no worries :).
Again, I would have ideally loved to share this update earlier, but it wasn't going to be useful without details. Lets keep an eye on the changes after deployment and please keep me posted then with any further changes that would need to be made, or any other comments :). Thank you!--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
My thoughts echo Short Brigade Harvester Boris, except I'm going to be a lot more blunt: how does this extension improve the encyclopedia? What I am seeing is yet another WMF-dictated extension that may not be consistent with the purpose of Wikipedia. You are imposing yet another burden on the community, so there needs to be an equivalent or greater increase in quality or people who are willing and able to build an encyclopedia to compensate. It is very difficult to do the latter on a phone or tablet -- a keyboard is required.
Admin time is a finite resource -- we are here to curate an encyclopedia, not people's lists of favorite articles. MER-C 13:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
MER-C Really thanks for the points you raised. As you have probably read in the FAQ, what this feature allows is creating public lists of Wikipedia articles that could be shared with others. The logic here is to provide a new experience that allows mobile users to have a new usability for Wikipedia on mobile--as in creating lists, in addition to being able to share the lists and promote Wikipedia content, on other platforms, which should help increase readership and possibly attract new users. This is not meant to overburden admin's tasks, however, the lists are being logged publicly for clarity, and for any inconvenience that might raise, admin rights were planned to be given on hiding/unhiding the list from Special:Gatherlist page. As I mentioned, I wasn't able to start the conversation earlier given the lack of some details. However, for better convenience, admin involvement can change, but what do you suggest alternatively? Thank you --Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you haven't grasped MER-C's point. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and our activities on the site should have the aim of building and maintaining that encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a social network – a point expressed in WP:NOT#FACEBOOK – but this extension provides social media features which have no relevance to creating encyclopaedic content. People can already share lists of articles, through external sites or lists on user subpages, and can already promote WP content by eg linking to an article on Twitter. We should not be encouraging people to make accounts simply to access such features because this distracts from our true purpose. The WMF should not be spending its voluminous donation money on such things, rather on features which will improve the encyclopaedia.
On a point of fact, this does not improve mobile usability as you have described it, because it does not make reading more accessible and nor does it improve editing functionality. BethNaught (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
BethNaught, this feature is an experiment, enabled only in beta. As we move forward we should be able to assess the very concerns that you have addressed and if beta testing metrices didn't show any benefit on mobile usage, then there is no need for it to continue. The point of this feature is not to promote FB behaviors on WP it is a test that provides new experience on mobile. For example, a user can create a list, name it, then they can get back to their collection of articles for quick review, something which can work nice while travelling and browsing lists of sights to see, then the user can share their list of sights visited, which might encourage others to edit or help grow these articles eventually, this is one example, another user can create a list of articles around a medical condition, and maybe a game can start between users who will compete best articles included in their lists, which eventually is an interesting drive to contribute to articles. It is a mobile oriented experiment, but the way how users engage with it, will open venues to desktop contributions as well and will help us learn how do both platforms can complete each other. Reading this I realized that, a user can fast browse on mobile and create a list of their first 10 created articles, while sharing and telling the story of how they started to edit--an interesting drive to invite others to learn about Wikipedia and consider contributing. This could be one usability, and is something to encourage others to consider editing, I need to add more screenshots to mediawiki to help visualize how it works. Needless to say, the mobile site has problems, like the article talk pages, the current userpage, and other things that are hopefully developed within the next 2 quarters. Meanwhile, we can give a chance to some experiments that can support learning about user engagement on mobile :).Many Thanks--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I actually think this could in principle be useful. However, I skim wikipedia on my phone on occasion and I always just switch to the desktop site because the mobile version is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a usable environment for reading, much less editing. So in that sense I think this is misdirected effort. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The example cited sounds like a TripAdvisor app. I'm not against experimentation but wouldn't giving the mobile version a more editor friendly interface be higher priority than a function that allows editors to merely share lists? Blackmane (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
This is rather like spending money to put a nice stereo system in your car. That's great, a really nice feature, except that the car won't get out of first gear. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
To continue with this blundness (I am sorry, the earlier discussions regarding features that did not get requested, did not work and find resistance did not get the message through) - so now this beta is ready, User:Melamrawy (WMF), I presume that all programming efforts are now going to be focused on all the reported old bugs, feature requests, requested improvements etc. that have been waiting in Bugzilla/Phabricator for years, or is the next project another misdirected effort to keep the system in its lower gears? As mentioned, editing on mobile is quasi-impossible, and yet efforts are focused on this, which in no way will help with improving Wikipedia? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
However, for better convenience, admin involvement can change,
Community involvement in moderation needs to be zero, because that's about how much benefit this extension brings to the encyclopedia. I've heard lots of promises from the WMF about reader "conversion" and editor retention, and this appears to be one of the most transparently ridiculous. (It'll be merely far-fetched if our mobile interface was up to scratch, because then the users you attract would have a fighting chance at making constructive contributions. Fancy that!)
The point of this feature is not to promote FB behaviors on WP
and maybe a game can start between users who will compete best articles included in their lists
Indeed.
Needless to say, the mobile site has problems, like the article talk pages, the current userpage,
Like the others, I ask: why are you not picking this obvious, low-hanging fruit that results in a clear improvement to our mobile platform? MER-C 13:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi everyone, some of low hanging fruit will be indeed picked in the next 3 months, mainly the userpage, talkpages, in addition to allowing anonymous editing, and more will follow, please keep directing me to requests. Would you like to have an IRC office hours to discuss more elaborately? Again, this feature is a test and only in beta, community involvement in moderation might tend to zero, my note here was to flag that you will have the ability to do something, if you need/want to. However, when a similar feature is availed on desktop, at some point, as per the discussion here, then moderation rules would need to be defined. Meanwhile, I started a page to explore possible uses of this test feature for desktop. Thank You.--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Those features are wanted by the community because we know they will help us improve the encyclopedia. Consequently, we wouldn't mind policing them for the usual crap. Oversight time is even more precious than admin time. You have failed to demonstrate how your extension improves the encyclopedia. If an extension does not improve the encyclopedia and imposes a community moderation version -- which is unavoidable if article lists are publicly available -- then it should not be deployed in any state. MER-C 09:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Input regarding "sharing and telling the story of how they started to edit--an interesting drive to invite others to learn about Wikipedia and consider contributing." Please read Wikipedia:General background on risks for women on Wikipedia and the Internet, and ask yourself whether it is ethical, given the risks involved, for us to continually push our volunteers to disclose personal information and give testimonials!
What direction are we going on this site-- towards becoming a respected cultural institution? Or just another Internet company using bait and switch cult recruitment techniques to leverage unpaid labor which does not enjoy standard workplace anti-harassment protections? An honest assessment by a panelist at West Virginia University recently suggested something on the order of, "there's harassment everywhere, join up now and learn to deal with it early... "-- in other words, a repeat of gathering at the Bridge to Selma, this time in cyberspace ... --Djembayz (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • So I have a few questions, Melamrawy (WMF).
    • Do pages have to actually exist for them to be included in someone's "list"? If a page is deleted once someone has listed it, what happens? Can they include already-deleted pages, or perhaps even pages that have not yet been created?
    • Is there the ability for administrators to delete these lists? Is there an ability for oversighters to suppress anything on these lists?
      • If there is no ability to suppress, this extension should not go live. We have had plenty of experience with WMF-designed extensions being used (intentionally or unintentionally) for trolling, BLP violations, personal abuse, release of private or non-public information and so on.
    • I will note the thread on Wikitech-L in which a multitude of developers and participants in WMF projects have also expressed serious concerns about this extension from the more technical point of view. Who is addressing these, and how are they being addressed? And who is the current product manager for Mobile? Or who is the product manager responsible for this extension?
  • Looking forward to your responses, Risker (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok so after reading this thread the the FAQ, I think I've been able to figure out what this extension does (which was surprisingly difficult, given the amount of words spent): it will let users with accounts, on mobile, create and publish topical article lists based on themes as they choose them. Similar, in an obscure sort of way, to how the Book creator lets us compile multiple articles into a topical "book". The intention appears to be that mobile users will create and share these lists in a social manner, I imagine a bit like we currently see lists from Buzzfeed along the lines of "25 Wikipedia articles you won't believe exist". This strikes me as...well, not inherently harmful, but perhaps an odd direction to take mobile development in a period where we don't even have mobile access to our watchlists (which are also lists, just not lists we can, er...use on mobile?). I echo Risker's concerns about suppression issues, though - we had similar road bumps with Echo, as I recall, and some have already been squashed in relation to Flow: any system by which users can generate content or references to content needs to be secure with regard to hiding inappropriate content or it shouldn't be live on our projects, for the security of our users. I would really appreciate if Melamrawy (WMF) can expand, whether in this thread or elsewhere (functionaries-l is open for business if for some reason Gather-suppression-related stuff can't be discussed on AN?), on how "all lists are viewed publicly and [... ]admins have the ability to respond to any issues that might raise" actually gives us the ability to handle problem content. Instructions here, locally, would be very, very good things to have.

    On the useful side, I do note that the Gather FAQ make a passing mention to the fact that "Though user needs on mobile do not identically meet user needs on desktop, through Gather, we hope to extract lessons and maybe even code that can help with adding more features to watchlists on desktop". Which is, again, not a bad thing, but does appear to be coming at the problem sort of sideways: if you're hoping to learn more about how people use and want to use their watchlists, why not do some research on watchlists rather than hope to get that information from a tool intended to be used entirely separately from watchlists? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings everyone, and thanks for the elaborate discussion. For better clarity, you can test the feature on test WP--make sure you go to settings and enable beta features first please, and check a sample of how generated lists would look like . Watchlists do exist on mobile web Fluffernutter :), they are unfortunately still missing in the app though :/.
To reply to Risker's points, right now, what has been developed so far, is the ability for an admin to delete someone's entire list, from the Special:Gatherlists page, making the list private, viewed only by its creator. During the test and if the feature is likely to continue, there should be a discussion around how a similar lists creation functionality could be moderated, whether on desktop or mobile, and we can use this test to examine moderation behaviors (who would be involved? what are the rules? etc). Currently, this product is being managed by Jon Katz. Please note that we can also help grow the Gather FAQ by adding more questions there. :) lets keep the constructive discussion keeping in mind that we can always change things during the test to make sure we are making the best use of this feature, or even redesigning it all. I am hoping my answer is making things more clear, and I am happy to elaborate more if not. :) Thank you everyone--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

User rights of global banned user[edit]

Spartaz has removed the user right from the globally banned user. I will err on the side of exceptional caution and extremely strict interpretation of policy and redact this discussion since there is nothing to be gained from the username (and directions to figuring out the circumstances of the ban) to remain archived. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  21:25, 30 March 2015 (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.



(Redacted)




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.

Request review of closure of ANI against Jytdog[edit]

Consensus supports the closure of the ANI without prejudice against a new thread should there be new reasons for one -- Euryalus (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2015 (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 am requesting a review of the closure of the ANI against Jytdog (Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment) I raised regarding their protracted incivility and harrassment of me. I am raising this review on the basis of premature closure and inaccurate consensus of opinion.
Premature closure. Other points regarding the behaviour of Jytdog were being made at the time of the closure (00.26). I made a posting just 6 mins before the closure. The closure had not been requested by anyone. It is worth noting that the closure was made at a time when the huge majority of people in the UK and other similar time zones clost to GMT would be asleep and these editors would not have had an opportunity to contribute and comment on a large proportion of the comments in this discussion which were very recent.
Inaccurate assessment of consensus. The closing editor stated "There is no consensus for a block or any other action at this time". As far as I can see, there is only one editor suggesting no action. All other editors suggest some action is taken, therefore, the consensus is to take action, but this has not happened. Actions considered ranged from sending Jtydog a cartoon of a leaping trout, to perhaps seeking mental health advice. Any editor that can write this[1] should not be allowed to edit on WP. From my position, simply posting hollow apologies after the event is totally insufficient. This is insulting to editors and damaging to the project. Jytdog is a highly experienced editor. This does not mean they should be protected. It means they should be a mentor. Jytdog knew exactly what they were doing and was pushing harassment to the very limit as exemplified by their comment here "None of what you write is actionable and much of it is nonsense (which should make it clear why i described you inexperienced)"Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC). If a newbie came on board and posted a message to another saying "just to be clear, look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck"[2] would we really just turn around and say "oh well, at least they apologised". __DrChrissy (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the closing - Admins are responsible to the community, and should not necessarily be arbiters of who "wins" or "loses" a dispute. If a situation can be curtailed (and excessive dramah prevented) by closing an AN/I report without action other than warnings, that is a responsible choice on the admin's part. (BTW, if you think I am a Wikifriend of Swarm, the admin who closed the discussion, I will note that my last block was made by that admin. Further, I cannot recall having muxh, if any, interaction with Jytdog.) BMK (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the close despite the fact that I didn't comment at AN/I. Jdog has apologised, and I doubt will use a swear word ever again. Send all fish products to the doc. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per BMK, with no prejudice against filing a new ANI request if the behavior is repeated. NE Ent 18:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Very good point NEEnt, yes, agree. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support closure per Roxy Formerly 98 (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • So are all those supporting closure with no action happy to see an editor write "just to be clear, look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck"[3]?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
If the cap fits ... -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
That cap ("ignorant fuck") never does. NE Ent 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@DrChrissy - Did he write that before the closure or after? BMK (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Before: the comment was 24 March, and the close was today. Nyttend (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
That is correct. My point is that Jytdog is an experienced editor and should absolutely not be communicating in this way, only to then apologise in the knowledge (due to their considerable experience of ANI - why do they have that experience?) that will only get threatened with a warning. Please note that Jytdog has not even received a warning as a result of the ANI, let alone the totally humiliating action of being sent a cartoon of a leaping trout.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No, the point at this moment is that he misbehaved, he acknowledged it, and he was warned about future misbehavior. If he were to say something like that now, after the close of the discussion, the acknowledgement of his wrongdoing and the warning, then you'd have something to complain about, but at this time, WP:AGF requires us to assume that he will do as he says he will do. BMK (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
No, of course not. It is not the case the an editor repeatedly brought to ANI only receives warnings. Simply assume Jytdog's behavior will be appropriate in the future; if that turns out to be untrue, refile on ANI. (Or you're welcome to leave me a note on my talk page; if I'm not on wikibreak I'll look into it.) NE Ent 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@DrChrissy: You should be aware, however, that NE Ent is not an admin or even an ombudsman (as he sometimes appears to feel he is), and has no special powers to do anything in regard to your complaint. He can't do anything that any other normal, everyday, rank-and-file editor couldn't do.
Instead, I'd recommend that if Jytdog misbehaves in your direction, you contact Swarm, the admin who closed the AN/I discussion; I think that would be a much more practical choice. BMK (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment No comment on this particular closure but maybe Jytdog could take a break from filing cases on all the dispute noticeboards. It seems like there are a couple every week lately. Repeatedly putting oneself in an adversarial situation with other editors increases the likelihood that ill-chosen words will be spoken. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Liz i completely hear that. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • sorry - I got a bit angry__DrChrissy (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Please look at the history page - this is the tactic that Jtydog uses - extremely disruptive and offensive.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@User:Philg88 - I hope you understand I most definately did not mean what I wrote - I am simply trying to help people understand what it feels like to be the subject of harassment from Jytdog.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy, don't do that again. See WP:POINT. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I will not. And I hope User:Philg88 appreciates the reason why I sent the message. This was in no way directed at them.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I have sent a full and unreserved apology to Philg88. I would encourage other editors to look at the history of what I did because this is exactly what Jytdog does. According to Jytdog, this is non-actionable. If you wish to take action against me, it must also apply to Jytdog. Please be assured that this is not the way I normally behave, I just see a mass of people running around trying to hush something up because an established editor has gone off the rails and they are worried about taking punitive action.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Nope. See WP:NOJUSTICE. NE Ent 21:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose closure Jytdog received complaints about this behaviour from editors at this ANI on March 16th, where Drmies summed it up as "too gruff". I would say this is a gross understatement. Perhaps reread the entry from Atsme, which supports DrChrissy's assertions above. The ANI from DrChrissy should not be viewed in isolation, and IMO was closed with dizzying speed before the entire picture emerged. If this "gruff" behaviour and comments such as look at my contribs you arrogant and ignorant fuck are considered acceptable behaviour here, the loss of WP editors can't be surprising. petrarchan47tc 20:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
as I wrote before, i overwrote that -the final comment was here and i apologized to that user here, which was accepted. Just icky to bring that up again. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It is not "icky" in the slightest to bring this up again. It is a perfectly legitimate example of your historical behaviour of reverting your own comments after having offended another editor that resulted in my ANI reaching consensus that action should be taken against you for this kind of bullying behaviour.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge no one has said the behavior was acceptable; if I'm mistaken please post a diff. NE Ent 22:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
"If the cap fits" ... -Roxy the dog™ [see above] petrarchan47tc 23:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Petra, that is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said, and I think you know it. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the meaning of what you said was unambiguous. If you weren't insulting Dr. Chrissy, what could you have possibly meant? Doors22 (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support closure Jytdog recognized issues with his behavior, apologized, and promised not to repeat these issues. We should take him at his word.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The point is that the ANI had a consensus that action should be taken against Jytdog. None has been taken. The ANI was closed before consensus was reached on what action should be taken.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As I read the ANI section, there was consensus for a warning, which occurred here and was accepted here. So, I believe the ANI was properly closed. --I am One of Many (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support closure although I was victim of Jytdogs aggressive behaviour too, I support closure due to two points: 1) WP:AGF, hopefully he really changes but we can only see that in a working practice and 2) AN/I will remain open, so if he falls back in the old behaviour he can be send back to AN/I quickly. The Banner talk 22:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Will someone please address my contention that the original ANI had a consensus that action should be taken, but that none has been taken. If this is nt addressed, you are sending out the message that ANI is a completely toothless tiger and it is a total waste of time to contribute to that page.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Every single commenter here who supported the closure of the thread is de facto supporting Swarm's closing conclusion that there was no consensus for anything but a warning, so there's no need for people to say so explicitly again.
    It's really time for you to put down the stick and stop beating the dead horse. There is not going to be a re-opening of the thread and there are not going to be any additional sanctions against Jytdog based on the evidence in that thread. If there is misbehavior in the future, you can be certain that it will be sanctioned appropriately, but for now, you need to let it go and go about improving the encyclopedia, lest you start to move into the area of "I didn't hear that" behavior, which can be construed as disruptive. BMK (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Support closure and allow people to open a new Request for Drama if they really feel they must. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I do hear what you are are saying. You are saying it is fine for all those contributors to make cogent arguements about the mis-behaviour of a clearly disruptive and uncivil editor on ANI, for them to support that action is taken, and for the admins then to take no action whatsoever. Not even a written warning! Think of all those hours that people have contributed in the ANI - wasted. Think of all the bad feeling Jytdog created - so harmful to the project. We civil and non-disruptive editors are expected to take an appropriate course of action by using ANI. What's the point? If anyone sees fit to close this thread - please go ahead...and please remember Jytdog's taunt at the beginning of the first ANI raised - "none of this is actionable". There must be the biggest ever Wiki-smirk out there upon closure of this.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I believe you are completely not listening to what people have said. Many times others have iterated that Jytdog was issued a warning by Swarm. For you to repeatedly say that no warning was issued is the most blatant case of head in the sand I've ever seen. One of Many linked the diff of the warning above, and I'll link it again, in bold, here. Blackmane (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I have been advised to "drop the stick". That I what I have attempted to do. Are you asking me to "pick the stick back up"?__DrChrissy (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
drchrissy, you edited the GMO article today, and you never have before. You are surely free to edit where ever you like of course. (nice edits, btw). You seem to be angry with me per your comments in this thread. I understand that I hurt you. I have apologized to you and have been formally warned by the community for my behavior (which, while it did happen for a while, was not characteristic of me - if it were, I would have received far stronger sanction). In any case. I hope your goal is to improve the encyclopedia and not to turn WP into a personal WP:BATTLEGROUND. Best regards. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
ARGGGHHHHHH. You are already in breach of your warning. You have sent a message that is completely against WP:GF.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. You will not see me extending the scope of my editing here into articles that you commonly edit; it would be wise of you to do the same. My intention is to minimize interaction with you, and keep it all purely civil. I suggest you do the same. I am not proposing a formal WP:IBAN, but this is common sense following a dispute that gets personal. Jytdog (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
ok, so you extended into the GM Food article, drchrissy. as you will then. Jytdog (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support closure per WP:ROPE and without prejudice to starting a new ANI thread if problems persist. The existing ANI thread is evidence of itself that a problem has existed, he's been given the opportunity to self-reform, and at this point we should give it some time to see if he does. If in a few weeks, he still is behaving in noncollaborative ways, there's no problem starting a thread then. Let sleeping dogs lie... --Jayron32 16:25, 30 March 2015 (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.

An article with long-term BLP vios[edit]

There's a ticket in OTRS about a bio that I've been dreading to touch. It has been vandalized over the years with some silly and some serious BLP violations that merit oversight, however the disruption is so widespread and the number of revisions so large that I'm thinking it needs to be deleted and the last good revision restored. Is that something that we generally do? I'm worried about attribution. If any oversighters are reading this I'd appreciate some advice (or action!). Thanks. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean to say there are BLP vios in the history or in the article as it is currently, or both? Sam Walton (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: In the history. Lots of them. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Well I figure retaining attribution and spending the time rev-deling the offending edits is the better way to go, I'm happy to do so if you'd like. Sam Walton (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: There are 301 revisions by my count, and some of the problematic edits date back 10 years. I'm not sure if individual revdels is the most efficient way to go, so I wanted to ask for an opinion on the viability of nuking it and starting over. It's going to be a lot of work at best, with high possibility of missing revisions that needed to be suppressed. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Nuking it and even just writing a stub with the good refs might be a better idea, especially since it makes it easier to spot future BLP issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't delete the page outright and then restore the latest revision: it would prevent proper attribution. I'd say the best options are probably either (1) deleting the page outright, not restoring anything, and writing a stub with the good refs, or (2) revdeleting all revisions except the latest, preventing access to the content but allowing everyone to see the list of contributors. Remember that you don't need to click every little box: click the first, hold down Shift, click the last, and let up Shift, and it will check all the boxes for you — if you've told it to display 500 revisions, this will get everything without much work. Wholesale deletion isn't quite in line with WP:CSD, but this sounds like an ignore-rules situation. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I suppose it depends which we care more about - BLP or contributor attribution. If the article is genuinely new then the latter is less of a concern - that there was a previous version that was deleted (someone's "hard work") is more a matter of credit rather than attribution. In short; agree with Nyttend's suggestion number 1. Stlwart111 22:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
@Samwalton9, David Fuchs, Nyttend, and Stalwart111: Thank you all. I went ahead and nuked most of the revisions, all text and selectively summaries where appropriate. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 23:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple page move[edit]

And that is that. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 10:17, 30 March 2015 (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 messed up on a page move to Sylhet Government. Pilot High School — needs to have another move with no period after "Government." Thanks. Carrite (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done Sam Walton (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2015 (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.

History missing after page move[edit]

No problem with the history; it's all there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2015 (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.

An article about a musician who is not notable (yet) was created at Alex kyza. I moved it to Alex Kyza per WP:NCCAPS, but now not only is it, for some reason, listed at the original title again, but the history got messed up somehow so now it appears as though I am the editor who created the article. Not a huge deal (in fact, I probably wouldn't have even known about it if Lakun.patra hadn't placed a {{prodwarningBLP}} on my talk page; I initially prodded the article myself), but...is there any way to fix this? Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone simply edited the redirect you created when you moved the page (the original history is at the uppercase title). Nothing needs to be fixed here - the incorrect casing should just be redirected again. Number 57 09:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
But I made the redirect after the original article was made (by JohannaLopez012, not me). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 10:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The article Alex kyza was first created at 06:32, 30 March 2015, you moved it at 06:51, 30 March 2015, but then it was created again at Alex kyza at 07:37, 30 March 2015. I've reverted it back to being a redirect. Squinge (talk) 11:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and when you say "the history got messed up somehow", it actually didn't - that's the history of the redirect, and you did in fact create the redirect. The history of the original article is now at Alex Kyza. Squinge (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2015 (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.

Istrian exodus: Request for admin attention[edit]

A few admin eyes are requested at Istrian exodus. For background, Istria is the name of the peninsula in the Adriatic Sea that included most of the former Yugoslavia and now includes most of Croatia. There was a content dispute that unfortunately included allegations of bias. The content dispute was taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard, but the thread was closed unsuccessfully there due to back-and-forth comments between editors after being cautioned by the DRN coordinator. I note that Istria is in the Balkan region, so that the topic is subject to discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. I am not asking any administrative action at this time except attention. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew Issue at WP:NPOVN[edit]

I am requesting a few administrative eyes on a dispute about the Gospel According to Matthew that is currently under discussion at the neutral point of view noticeboard. I am not asking for any administrative action at this time except attention. I was asked whether I was willing to file a report at WP:ANI about discussions about the Gospel According to Matthew, which has been a contentious article in the past. There has been little discussion on the talk page recently, but there has been discussion at WP:NPOVN, mainly concerning the most neutral statement about scholarly disputes as to when the book was written. What I see is primarily two editors who do not like each other, but nothing that appears to me to rise to the level of calling for administrative action, and therefore no reason for an ANI filing, because it is mostly a content dispute. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion: Dreadstar desysopped[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For conduct unbecoming an administrator, namely

  1. sending an insulting e-mail to an editor he had just sanctioned,
  2. edit warring on an article and then protecting his preferred version, and
  3. lifting an arbitration enforcement block out of process,

Dreadstar (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion: Dreadstar desysopped

(Non-administrator comment) He indeffed himself, so I doubt he'll be coming back. I don't recall ever crossing paths with him but I wish him the best. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 00:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Good. We've got rid of another one. Which admin is next? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Very classy comment. BMK (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, buddy! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Noting that discussion should happen at the "Discuss this" link. --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 19:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Noted. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to lift Light show's image ban[edit]

No need to drag this on any further, there is evidently no support for the lifting of this image ban, and I hope Light show makes an effort to understand the reasons cited for opposing here. Sam Walton (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm requesting that the ban on uploading images that was imposed in November 2014 be lifted. The original ANI about this and my "oppose" rationals should clarify why I don't foresee too many future issues. I see many articles that could, and should, have an image, such as I noted for Talk:Bob_Simon#Lead_photo_request, and some others, and I think those articles would be improved with images. On my talk page, it was suggested back in November that the ban was not meant to be infinite, and could eventually be appealed. I asked Monnriddengirl last month, and she suggested I come here. Thanks for any consideration. --Light show (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Here's the thread link and these are the other editors who supported the ban: User:Masem, User:Ivanvector, User:Laser_brain, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, User:Knowledgekid87, User:Dennis Brown, User:Thomas.W, User:Neatsfoot, User:Diannaa, User:Calliopejen1. The only oppose vote was from the user himself; most of those supporting the ban have had many dealings with the editor and copyright issues.
The problem dates back to 2009 if not earlier. He has been the subject of a CCI since April 2012 under his former Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Wikiwatcher1 user name, the topic of an RfC RFC/U in October 2012, and blocked at Commons indefinitely blocked on Commons since 30 November 2013 for the same reasons. Each time the problem was addressed in the past, the user proceeded to tell all of us how we were wrong re: WMF policies for PD images, and he alone was interpreting them correctly.
The oppose statement he refers to which will tell us why there won't be any more issues if he returns to uploading is simply a rehash of his position. It has caused problems for others who work on copyright concerns in the past and he's basically saying that he wants to return to that same pattern as an uploader. There's no indication from him re: a willingness to work within the WMF rules and guidelines either before (his oppose statement) or afterwhen he's tried to get the ban lifted. We hope (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons We Hope lists - several prior attempts at making Light Show understand the minimum requirements we require (compared to US Fair Use) seemed to have repeatedly failed. There's no reason that, if LS believes that there exist free or non-free media that can be used on WP , to direct other users on the proper steps or the like to upload the images appropriate. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I did direct other users to post a non-free for the RD of Bob Simon, including sample instructions, yet no one was capable. In any case, the key issue is PD, not non-free. I rarely added non-free images since deleting them is totally subjective and thereby arbitrary, ie. #8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. --Light show (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
A lot more people are active Wikipedia:Files for upload here and try to handle all requests when possible. This handles requests for specific files; why not try this in future? We hope (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
In the case of Bob Simon (who died in February but was an active person in the industry till then), there is a chance a free image can be found, though a check at flickr + google doesn't immediately show any. Non-free policy suggests that we don't immediately drop a free image of a recently-deceased person just because they have deceased if that person still was a rather public figure. In a few months, yes, that might change. --MASEM (t) 02:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Nothing indicates Light show's understanding of our image use policies has improved, and their knee-jerk conclusion that the death of a long-time public figure automatically authorizes the use of a nonfree image is not promising. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per those above. BMK (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - I agree that blocks of this sort should not be infinite, but I don't see that there has been any effort to consider the reasons for the ban, to understand our copyright rules, or to improve submissions. We imposed the ban because of the inordinate amount of community time necessary to vet this user's contributions because of a long history of misunderstanding or ignoring copyright. I would prefer if we could allow this user to suggest images for upload and have them vetted before being uploaded, a sort of image probation I guess, but I have to oppose a straight lifting of the ban. Ivanvector (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I suggested that months ago, and agree that's a reasonable solution. However, it was rejected without explanation. --Light show (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Where was it rejected? In the thread you link, the last word on the subject that I see was "you can certainly ask her". Did you? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
For the record, after a series of posts to my talk page badgering me after the deletion of a Commons image, the user was told he was not welcome at my talk page; this was in March 2014. Since he was blocked at Commons, I linked my talk page to the Commons DR and said he was free to post his reasons for keeping the image there; nothing was posted by him until after the file was deleted at Commons. I don't feel that working with him would result in anything other than the differences of opinion we've had regarding what WMF rules consider to be in the public domain. To me, it's a question of his willingness to follow the WMF rules. What we've had in the past is him trying to assert his own standards of PD vs those of WMF. Since they're not the same, there are deletion requests and contested deletions. I feel it would be the same situation with the exception of the image not yet being uploaded. We hope (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see any evidence that anything has changed since the original thread. The user is either unable or unwilling to understand the community's concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I wasn't involved with the original decision to ban uploading images but in various pages I've been very concerned with the liberal attitude displayed towards copyright and the wrong licenses and claims on certain images. I don't think you can be trusted on this LS, sorry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose LS shows no understanding of the relevant copyright policies and simply refers to his old comments, which are contrary to the relevant policies. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2015 (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.

Residency (medicine)[edit]

Something has gone wrong with Residency (medicine) after an edit on 30 March. There is an error message "The revision #0 of the page named "Residency (medicine)" does not exist." Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

This is happening across the encyclopedia in many articles. Is anybody doing anything about it? Viriditas (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Update: see here. Apparently, a revert and manual restore seems to fix it, but how is this going to fix all of the other pages? Dare I say it? The Machine Stops. Viriditas (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Cotton[edit]

Hi, Italian user Cotton passed away last year. However, his username here on enwiki was not Cotton but User:Cotton10: so User:Cotton should be unprotected and fixed. --Jaqen (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I unprotected since it's clearly not the same user, and protected User:Cotton10 instead. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Page move fuddle-up[edit]

All fixed now. EdJohnston (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2015 (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 all,
It appears that administrator Shirt58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has botched some page-moves. (Again).
The affected articles are Peperoncini/Peperoncino and Italian sweet pepper/Friggitello.
I have given Shirt58 a notification about this thread and warned them that competence is required in page-moves here.
The page-move discussions include this and this.
It seems Shirt58 has tried to fix this up, but has discovered they are really not smart enough to fix the mess they have made.
Can someone please fix up this guy's mistakes? (Again.) --Shirt58 (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to think it might be time for an interaction ban between Shirt58 and Shirt58, it's clear they can't work well together. On a more serious note, can you clarify which pages are supposed to be where? I'll try to sort it out. Sam Walton (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it was more straightforward than it looked. I've fixed the Peperoncini > Friggitello move by moving it to Peperoncino as originally requested, then performed the Italian sweet pepper > Friggitello move which hadn't taken place. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
While Shirt58 did notify Shirt58 of this thread, I'm seeing no evidence they attempted to discuss the situation with Shirt58 before filing an AN thread, as is the usual expectation. NE Ent 13:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
This peppery issue appears to be a case of "good hand, bad hand" sockpuppetry. It may be time to file a sock-puppet investigation. New Checkusers were appointed today and can get on-the-job training with this inquiry. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Xezbeth fixed this. It appears that Friggitello, Peperoncino and Peperoncini now contain the proper content and no further moves are needed. There is a discussion about the correctness of the recent moves at Talk:Peperoncino#Requested move 29 March 2015 and those interested in peppers are invited to participate. EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2015 (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.

Page Restoration[edit]

Could Someone please restore WP:BANNEDUSERS? It seems to be deleted

Thanks,

Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 15:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The page was deleted after this discussion. Sam Walton (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Nominate 2015 Los Angeles train crash for AfD[edit]

Can an admin please nominate 2015 Los Angeles train crash for AfD with the text "Fails [[WP:NOT]] this local train accident, has no demonstrated lasting significance, this is not a newspaper" . Thanks 101.169.85.54 (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC).

 Done - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Los Angeles train crash. For future reference, any autoconfirmed registered user can do this, not just admins. ansh666 03:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ansh666: Nope, it can be done by any registered user; they don't have to be autoconfirmed. Graham87 09:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Pretty sure you need to be autoconfirmed to create pages in WP space? Dunno. ansh666 12:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
ansh, Graham87 is correct. Any registered editor can create pages in WP space. --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, fixed. Thanks for clearing that up. ansh666 02:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed[edit]

Following community consultation and voting. the Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following users to the Functionary team.

  • The following users are appointed as Oversighters:

The Committee would like to thank the community and all the candidates for bringing this process to a successful conclusion.

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss, if desired, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2015 Checkuser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed
  • You lot: thanks for your service. Expect more dirty and complicated work. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

AN/I proposal needs closure[edit]

AN/I thread has been closed. BMK (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On An/I I have restored from the archive the master thread concerning the e-cigarette issue. The final section of this, about a proposal to institute community discretionary sanctions, needs to be closed. Are there any admins willing to wade through the verbiage to determine whether there is a consensus or not? The main thread start is here, and the section needing closure is here. BMK (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a bit of background on this: the issue was brought to ArbCom, but the committee didn't accept the case, preferring to let the community deal with it. Now, the community could certainly deal with it with a pocket veto, allowing the thread to be archived without action, but it would seem to be a more appropriate solution, after so many editors have taken the time and effort to comment, for it to be formally closed by an uninvolved admin or admins. Perhaps a troika of admins might volunteer to do the deed? The thread's been open for 19 days now, so it's certainly ripe for closing.
Any volunteers? BMK (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Closed by Mr. Stradivarius. Thanks. BMK (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

user has created another users userpage[edit]

see history User:Kaiwan Bahroz--Musamies (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Kaiwan.B and Kaiwan Bahroz are both the same person, Kaiwan Bahroz and he is trying to write an article about himself. You need to notify Kaiwan.B that you are discussing their edits here. -- GB fan 13:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Musamies, I notified Kaiwan.B that they were being discussed here. In the future you need to do that. -- GB fan 14:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I came across a new editor last week that was creating a lot of user pages for newish editors who hadn't gone to the trouble. He didn't explain whether he was trying to help them out or just rack up a lot of page creations. But when he asked about why it was wrong, I didn't have a go-to policy explanation. While no one "owns" a Wikipedia page, it just seems improper to create someone else's main user page. Or was I all wrong about this and there is no harm, no foul? Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:UP#OWN, “Other users and bots may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you, though by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags. Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as may edits from banned users. Most community policies including No personal attacks and Biographies of living persons will apply to your user space, just as elsewhere. (Purely content policies such as original research, neutral point of view etc., generally do not, unless the material is moved into mainspace.)” Emphasis added JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
So, by convention sounds like it is common practice and creating user pages for other users, unasked, is actually not prohibited then. It's just presumptuous and intrusive but not forbidden. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The stupidity begins[edit]

Quickly going nowhere productive, Coffee has changed their signature and AfDs signed as Jimbo have been changed. Sam Walton (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2015 (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.

Facepalm jeez.jpg

I forgot until a few minutes that it's stupid day. Anyway, anyone else [4] want to tell Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that signing their name as "Jimbo Wales" [5] isn't appropriate.? NE Ent 01:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'll tell myself that it's not appropriate, please and thank you. Jimbo Wales // stole my cup // and beans // 01:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
^Not really.           BMK (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
While I generally don't mind the signature, I would ask that it's not used when performing administrative tasks such as closing AFDs. These will persist beyond 1 April. Nakon 01:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
All of the edits will persist beyond 1 April. Coffee is not for the first time demonstrating a degree of silliness I don't particularly want to see in an admin. - Sitush (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • *shrugs* I'm sure Coffee will go back on April 2nd and fix every signature. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  04:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not. It's not like he has a great track record when it comes to acknowledging errors in his ways, eg: recent ANI reports. - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, please don't perform most administrative tasks. If you join a discussion, it won't matter a big deal (at most, people will think that Jimbo has an opinion on the discussion), but if you perform some administrative task that involves you leaving a signature, people may see it as a decision being handed down from the God-King. Not a problem for stuff like speedy deletion, of course, but if I want to challenge the deletion of Samuel Akinniyi Ajiboyede, I'm going to be a lot more hesitant if I think that it got deleted by Jimbo himself. Nyttend (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I noticed that {{NOINDEX}} was being added to an AFD discussion. I didn't understand this and so investigated. This doesn't seem sensible - doing an April Fool and then covering it up so that people can't find it is self-defeating. Andrew D. (talk) 07:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The trouble with humour is it doesn't travel well and doesn't cater for a wider audience. While I personally would love it everyone lightened up a bit, you can't make people lighten up to your level. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
And most definitely not the sour crowd of en.wp —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 11:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Humor is supposed to be, at least to some extent, funny. This is, quite frankly, not (especially with that bogus edit summary). Sorry, but crap that would get you blocked the other 364 days of the year shouldn't get carte blanche just because it's April 1. --Kinu t/c 15:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Sigh, I see he did the same thing to a number of those AFDs :-( Squinge (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • How about actually blocking some of these fools? How about (in the pure spirit of preventing damage) doing it beforehand too? It's not as if the culprits aren't obvious from their behaviour in past years. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well the thing to do is put some block templates on their user pages, but, get this, don't block 'em. hah hah --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Coffee did get a "stop this now or you'll be blocked" notice, and promptly stopped, making the block unnecessary. That'll do for now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Have you seen the number of AfD actions that Coffee has signed as "Jimbo Wales"? That's irresponsibly stupid. Squinge (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
    I've removed his fake signatures and removed his NOINDEX tags from the AFDs I could find, and I think I got them all. It's extremely disappointing to see such behavior from an admin creating disruption for others to clean up. Squinge (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Not the first time from this admin. But we all know what would happen if this was taken up at WP:ANI. Lengthy debate, with lots of strong evidence against Coffee. They'll go off in a huff, blank their talkpage, pretend to be "leaving for good", then come back after a few days and get of scot free. Just like last time. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:04, 1 April 2015 (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.

AN/I proposal needs closure[edit]

AN/I thread has been closed. BMK (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On An/I I have restored from the archive the master thread concerning the e-cigarette issue. The final section of this, about a proposal to institute community discretionary sanctions, needs to be closed. Are there any admins willing to wade through the verbiage to determine whether there is a consensus or not? The main thread start is here, and the section needing closure is here. BMK (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a bit of background on this: the issue was brought to ArbCom, but the committee didn't accept the case, preferring to let the community deal with it. Now, the community could certainly deal with it with a pocket veto, allowing the thread to be archived without action, but it would seem to be a more appropriate solution, after so many editors have taken the time and effort to comment, for it to be formally closed by an uninvolved admin or admins. Perhaps a troika of admins might volunteer to do the deed? The thread's been open for 19 days now, so it's certainly ripe for closing.
Any volunteers? BMK (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Closed by Mr. Stradivarius. Thanks. BMK (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

user has created another users userpage[edit]

see history User:Kaiwan Bahroz--Musamies (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Kaiwan.B and Kaiwan Bahroz are both the same person, Kaiwan Bahroz and he is trying to write an article about himself. You need to notify Kaiwan.B that you are discussing their edits here. -- GB fan 13:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Musamies, I notified Kaiwan.B that they were being discussed here. In the future you need to do that. -- GB fan 14:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I came across a new editor last week that was creating a lot of user pages for newish editors who hadn't gone to the trouble. He didn't explain whether he was trying to help them out or just rack up a lot of page creations. But when he asked about why it was wrong, I didn't have a go-to policy explanation. While no one "owns" a Wikipedia page, it just seems improper to create someone else's main user page. Or was I all wrong about this and there is no harm, no foul? Liz Read! Talk! 16:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:UP#OWN, “Other users and bots may edit pages in your user space or leave messages for you, though by convention others will not usually edit your user page itself, other than (rarely) to address significant concerns or place project-related tags. Material that clearly does not somehow further the goals of the project may be removed (see below), as may edits from banned users. Most community policies including No personal attacks and Biographies of living persons will apply to your user space, just as elsewhere. (Purely content policies such as original research, neutral point of view etc., generally do not, unless the material is moved into mainspace.)” Emphasis added JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
So, by convention sounds like it is common practice and creating user pages for other users, unasked, is actually not prohibited then. It's just presumptuous and intrusive but not forbidden. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The stupidity begins[edit]

Quickly going nowhere productive, Coffee has changed their signature and AfDs signed as Jimbo have been changed. Sam Walton (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2015 (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.

Facepalm jeez.jpg

I forgot until a few minutes that it's stupid day. Anyway, anyone else [6] want to tell Coffee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that signing their name as "Jimbo Wales" [7] isn't appropriate.? NE Ent 01:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh I'll tell myself that it's not appropriate, please and thank you. Jimbo Wales // stole my cup // and beans // 01:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
^Not really.           BMK (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
While I generally don't mind the signature, I would ask that it's not used when performing administrative tasks such as closing AFDs. These will persist beyond 1 April. Nakon 01:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
All of the edits will persist beyond 1 April. Coffee is not for the first time demonstrating a degree of silliness I don't particularly want to see in an admin. - Sitush (