Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272

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

Noticeboard archives


Can you block my IP address please?[edit]

Go find somewhere else to play. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

And set it in the way that I can create account and edit while logged in? I just don't want anyone to put my IP address in page history. Thanks. (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that if someone else gets assigned that IP they won't be able to edit. We only do short blocks on IPs and only to prevent current disruption. Chillum 15:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I am the host, and I don't want others to edit using my IP without being logged in. If they want to edit, they can create an account and log in. (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

While you are welcome to put any sort of controls on your side of the IP it is Wikipedia's preference that IPs are allowed to edit. You have not really provided us much information about why the IP needs special consideration or why you are an authority for the IP. Chillum 16:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately we won't be able to do that. If the IP address is dynamic or if you change service providers, the block will affect an unintended individual. If you are using a static IP, only those who access your internet service will edit through this IP address. If you are worried about others editing Wikipedia this can be better managed on your end by requiring a password to access the internet service, install a web filtering program that controls access to Wikipedia, or simply inform those who visit or reside in your household of your wishes. Mike VTalk 16:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • While it is, in theory, possible for you to prove that you control an IP address (for example, I control and can prove it), the very fact that I control means that nobody else can edit Wikipedia from that IP address. In the case of you do not control the IP address. It is a dynamic address controlled by Comcast cable,[1] and they can assign it to someone else and give you a new IP address anytime they feel like it. I doubt that the new user would appreciate being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Note the OP (presumably) posted from two different IPs:

JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Football transfer rumours/vandalism causing backlog at RPP. Any admin who's got some spare time?[edit]

Due to it being time for the football transfer rumours again, a lot of football-related articles are getting hit with a mixture of well-meant but problematic edits (changing clubs when nothing's been confirmed yet, etc.) and outright vandalism. As a result, about half the RPP-backlog currently exists of football-related articles. The current list of football articles—some of which were protected during the time of writing this post—at RPP is

but many, many more articles are also effected to some degree or another, just not reported to RPP (yet). Is there any admin with some time to keep a bit of an eye on RPP for similar such requests the upcoming few hours? AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1) The first is already protected. 2) The second is not eligible because the amount of activity today is not normally the level we protect things, and we don't usually pre-emptively protect articles 3) The third probably shouldn't be protected: a single editor caused the major disruption, and is already blocked. 4) The fourth has had only one edit today, and only few editors who reverted yesterday. Again, reverts are keeping up just fine, protection not needed. I've given up checking the rest. I understand we anticipate some increased activity, but we need to weigh that anticipation against a lot of good faith increases of activity among new editors, and not pre-emptively protect articles like this. We should invite new edits, and help them by improving good faith but badly formatted or referenced edits where we can. Protection should be used sparingly and as a last resort where normal levels of reverts become a nuisance, and we can't keep up. I am not seeing that here. --Jayron32 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Note that they are not reported there by me. I just noticed the severe increase in such reports today alongside various articles dealing with these issues as I was vandalfighting with Huggle, and I figured that it'd be best to point out the increased number of reports and issues so that the backlog remains manageable. It's up to the admins whether the requests are accepted or denied, as always, but I figured it'd be useful for the admins to know there were a lot of such requests to accept/deny and that more are likely to come in the rest of the day or so, thus RPP being a bit more busy than usual thus it being helpful if admins keep a bit of an eye on it. (And yes, RPP shows up on the whole administrative backlog stuff, but since RPP is there practically half of the time or so in my experience, it's not too useful in this case) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing talkpage comments.[edit]

User:Bosstopher alerted User:Bbb23 of discretionary sanctions. User:FreeRangeFrog has disregarded WP:TPO guidelines. per WP:BLANKING a user is allowed to blank the warnings and it is still considered that it is read, it also further states that if another objects to the removal or editing another individuals comments to stop. I am objecting, my contention is that Bosstopher being a long term contribute is not doing it in bad faith and Bbb23 is sufficiently experienced to manage their own talkpage. I have attempted to explain that I object to this twice [2] and [3] inappropriate removal and the response was that I can not revert the inappropriate action [4]. I made one reversion prior to this but being an admin does not give you special nanny privileges, FreeRangeFrog needs to play by the same rules as all the little people. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to enlighten us as to how any of this has anything to do with creating and maintaining an online encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
HiAB is becoming a net detriment to the project, and (a) restoring a pointy and misguided notification, then (b) going to ANI suggests that some kind of break from Wikipedia would be beneficial for the community. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Posting the notice is just being diligent, but going this far to ensure that it stays on the page seems to be a bit much. PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but is there a history with User:Bosstopher I'm not familiar with? I see an editor here for at least 4 years, I assume he has a good reason to leave a template. I see what appears to be over zealous protection of another admin. I bring the relevant attention to the admin I revert once. I discuss more and with no further reverts I asked for a review here. I'm not asking for punitive action, I just think that a user that has been here that long knows what they are doing and it's not my business or anybodies but Bbb23's to respond. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • HIAB, it should've been left up to Bbb23 to decide if they actually want the content there or not. Bosstopher's warning was perhaps misguided, maybe it wasn't; one could say the same about FreeRangeFrog's removal (which would probably have been a lot better had they not accidentally hit enter whilst writing out the edit summary). HiAB, trout yourself for wasting your own time with the reversion, and for wasting everyone's time with this fairly frivolous ANI thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
If it's a non issue I apologize but I really despise removing comments that are legitimate. This seemed like a very reasonable response [[5]]. So with all this mandatoriness and all of notifications for DS or TPO, who is exempt? What level of editors can give those notices and who are suitable to receive those? I'm sorry I'm just the type of person I like explicit guidelines that we can all follow. Maybe that just isn't the case. I've explained my position if it's the communities decision that FRF actions were above board I can hardly complain as we all live by consensus. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
From my POV this seems like a done and dusted event. I certainly didn't mean to be threatening or POINTy, at least I dont think I was making a disruptive point, I just didn't want the other alerted editor to feel like they were being unfairly targeted. I (and quite a few other editors who watch the page) tend to give sanctions alerts to everyone who comments on the Talk:Gamergate controversy page, but it seems like alerts are approached differently in most other topic areas. It definitely was not meant as a warning, as if you look at the talk page history Bbb23 and me have mostly been in agreement on the topic. Bosstopher (talk) 09:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The other user has been editing for a month and has a total of 16 edits, all regarding a single purpose. There is no need to issue sanction notifications to experienced editors in a case like that, particularly given that one of your edits (diff) pointed out "You can't call a BLP racist in wikipedia's voice" (that is, at least some of the new user's text was blatantly inappropriate). For the record, the old text (before the new user arrived) looks more DUE to me, and the recent activity seems to be the usual whipping-up of indignation about a recent and very minor "controversy". Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Bosstopher: It was never my intention to cast aspersions at you or your experience, etc. If I came across as such then I apologize. My only point was that the warning was unnecessary. That might be a point of disagreement and a topic of wider discussion of course (does a CU really need a DS warning or is that just taking the bureaucracy a bit too far?) , but unfortunately it just generated more dramaz. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@FreeRangeFrog: It's fine I don't feel slighted or insulted in the slightest, and it didnt come across like that. Was just trying to explain the point of view from which I was approaching this. Tbh this seems like a done and settled issue to me. Bbb23 has read the alert, the other editor has been permabanned (which is a slight pity because they seemed to be slowly learning proper editing style), and I've had the odd pleasure of having the number 4 appear in my red notification box for the first time. I'd be fine with this being closed, as long as User:Hell in a Bucket doesn't have any issues he thinks still need to be discussed.Bosstopher (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
BAsically Bbb23 solved it for us and I appreciate the comment by FRF but it's obvious it's an issue the community doesn't really care about so close away. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on this user[edit]

several users found be socks, blocked accordingly, issue seems resolved for the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 27 May 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.

Hi, I am requesting some caution with User:Wiki-shield. He/she has a history of trying to remove anything critical of Cogmed and accused me of being associated with Lumosity (cogmed's presumed market rival), which isn't true. This person has a very short history on Wikipedia and most of it is trying to remove anything critical of 'brain training' programs. Here are some of WS's latest edits.[6].

@Taeyebaar, I don't know what is the cause of your personal vendetta with Cogmed and other memory/brain training programs but your history of editing these articles shows crafting the text in negative manner and removing all positive references and all supporting research. As for your statement re Lumosity, interestingly enough I never said (or thought before) that you are associated with Lumosity... Yet, looking at Lumosity history I see now that this is the only memory/brain training program where you didn't do negative edits, assigned to Wiki Skepticism, etc. Should we read your message above as a self-confession in sock-puppetry...?Wiki-shield (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not accusing him/her of being associated with anything, but his defensiveness for cogmed (and possibly other programs) seems suspicious. I think a neutral admin or other admins should keep a close eye on this individual and his/her activity. Thanks.--Taeyebaar (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A lovingly crafted advertisement. Once the PR crap is blasted out, it is a lot shorter but better for it. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Advertisement??? Did you even bother reading about Cogmed before removing 80% of article incl. the history of Cogmed and all supporting research??? Cogmed is the most reputable memory training program and it is used by millions of people around the world as an alternative to ADHD medication. Virtually every mental health professional in the US and Canada recognizes and supports Cogmed training. It is the only program supported and recognized by American Psychological Association (APA). There are over 45 independent peer-reviewed research studies from top universities and research centers supporting benefits of Cogmed training. So far there is only 3 negative studies for Cogmed, but these are dis-proportionally inflated in popular media - being an alternative to ADHD drugs, Cogmed is jeopardizing profits of Big Pharma... I have absolutely no association with Cogmed, but as a psychotherapist who treats ADHD patients, I am very upset with your actions. I urge you to revisit the article and reconsider your edits. There is no point with going into editing wars with admin but I suggest that other admins (especially ones with psychology background) look into this issue.Wiki-shield (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes I did. And I have a decade of Wikipedia experience covering tens of thousands of edits on thousands of articles. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Yup. An advertisement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
And Wiki-shield apparently thinks the problem is a 'rogue admin' [7]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Well it looks like it's pointless to argue with admins in Wikipedia... As a professional, I am deeply disturbed that non-professionals like you manipulate public opinion making edits without even investigating the subject. Yet, I don't want to waste my time here - with admins like you improving Wikipedia is an impossible task Wiki-shield (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, there are a number of paid COI editors who do excellent work and have no problem getting their work into the encyclopedia. All it takes is the courage to put Wikipedia first and to inform the client that following Wikipedia's rules is the only way to make changes that don't get reverted. There are plenty of corporate articles full of errors or unsourced claims by the corporations enemies. A good disclosed paid COI editor can turn those articles into neutral, well-sourced articles, which is usually money well spent. What they can't do is turn them into advertisements or PR fluff pieces. For that you have to find a website that accepts paid advertising. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I solidly agree with Guy Macon. See the history and talk page for our Tony Blinken article. Bgluckman, employed by a PR firm, did a wonderful job of improving the article while carefully following our COI standards: we started with a rather crummy page with a bunch of errors and content cited to sources that didn't support the content, and he helped us turn it into a far better article. If everyone with conflicts of interest worked like Bgluckman, the issue of paid editing wouldn't even be seen as a problem. Nyttend (talk) 06:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@GuyMacon and @Nyttend, what are you talking about and how is it related to the topic?Wiki-shield (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Wiki-shield claimed that for paid COI editors like himself, "improving Wikipedia is an impossible task". Nyttend and I pointed out that others not only manage to do it, but to make a living at it, by actually improving Wikipedia instead of trying to misuse Wikipedia as a place to run ads without paying for them. What's the problem with saying that? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
User:CorporateM treads this fine line well, IMO. Wiki-shield not so much. Guy (Help!) 09:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually I think a topic ban is called for for wiki-shield. Not only is this an obvious red flag name, but wiki-shield is a WP:SPA whose sole purpose here is to make partisan edits to a walled garden of articles around the questionable practice of brain training. For example:

I thought you are a sock for Lumosity (based on your self admission), but it looks like you are too concerned about LearningRx. That explains things, unlike LearningRx which is a "Herbalife" of brain training, Lumosity is doing quite well and could afford to hire some rotten Wikipedia admin to promote it.

(diff) This is WP:ABF and very clear battlefield mentality. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeing that this individual realizes nothing wrong with removing reliably sourced material, I think a topic ban is now warranted. I just had to revert his vandalism on Arrowsmith School for the dozenth time. Should I report WS on the vandalism notice board.Taeyebaar (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any formal association with Cogmed. My reasoning is very simple, as a psychotherapist I see many ADHD patients who greatly benefited from Cogmed training. Some were even able to stop medications. Then 3 months ago I noticed how bad the Wikipedia article is and decided to contribute my time to improve it. After realizing what a mess Wikipedia is and how many content manipulations going on here I decided to stay longer and fight for a good cause. Then it developed into a hobby :)

— diff
. This person's words speak for himself (or herself).--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal[edit]

Wiki-shield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA whose edits serve to promote Cogmed. This editor has several times alleged (without benefit of evidence) that those who oppose his strongly partisan edits, are paid by Luminosity, a competitor. Both companies exist within a walled garden of articles on "brain training", an area rife with dubious and inflated claims. There are others who appear to be similarly conflicted, but Wiki-shield is an unambiguous partisan here with no other evident interest in Wikipedia.

I propose that Wiki-shield is banned from the topic of brain training, broadly construed, for a period of one year. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Strong support except I think it should be for good. His rude comments (see above samples) and edit wars -including the blanking of reliably sourced info from experts in the field of brain science- is enough to warrant a forever ban from these topics. If common sense prevailed on Wikipedia, he would have been banned the first few weeks after he (or she) joined. But by the minimum he should be banned permanently from these topics.

Being reverted by multiple editors, only to continue removing reliably sourced arguments from those qualified in brain study and instead leaving in unsupported (usually anecdotal) claims by marketers of expensive 'brain training' programs shows his defiance of WP:NPOV which is enough to be banned from Wikipedia altogether. But again this permanent topic ban should be the minimum he should receive, nothing less.--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • And by the way, I never removed counter-arguments made by the Arrowsmith School that they're program actually does work. Howard Eaton who runs the Eaton Arrowsmith School made dubious arguments supportive of the program he co-runs and I left it in. Wiki-Shield however likes to keep citations like that left in while blanking out citations from profs who have openly criticized the program which is a clear violation of WP:RS, WP:Vandalism and WP:NPOV--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note - the user who requested the ban on the user Wiki-Shield - Taeyebaar - appears to have a simple history adding exclusively "skepticism" to a group of similar articles - Cogmed, Arrowsmith School, Luminosity, LearningRX, etc. - apparently all connected to ideas surrounding "neuroplasticity", which they themselves have added most of the skepticism and criticism for accordingly for their edit history. Said user is clearly biased towards these subjects towards a specific viewpoint, and these articles are being considerably unbalanced by said users "reliably sourced edits". See WP:NPOV WP:BALASPS WP:UNDUE Instead suggest that Administrators monitor the unbalanced and opinionated activity of Taeyebaar (Unlike the attack on Guy who is obviously a long-term editor). I propose that Taeyebaar is also banned from the topic of brain training, broadly construed, for a period of one year. Neither Taeyebaar or Wiki-shield are unbiased editors for these subjects! They deserve unbiased editing from here on in. Beardocratic (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Digging a little further - it would appear that user Taeyebaar has been actively and systematically deleting articles - Cogmed, LearningRX, etc. in this space, in addition to unbalancing remaining articles with skepticism. Seems like said user is running a one-man war against brain training - it is tantamount to WP:Vandalism. They obviously have a specific viewpoint they are trying to push, at the cost of other editor's effort. Beardocratic (talk) 23:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Andy) Perhaps you should have dug even further. Your assertion is without merit. Taeyebaar has no power to delete articles; that editor is not an administrator, so cannot do so. At least in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination), a formal process involving a number of different editors, that editor's assertion was to keep, not delete the page. BusterD (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
And that user seems to be the creator of the modern version of the Cogmed page. BusterD (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks to me like an edit war happened between Wiki-shield and Taeyebaar for the Cogmed page, which got dropped Original Cogmed Article Revisions. Doesn't appear like neutral editing. (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of 'exclusive' editing histories, Beardocratic, is this account your first one (with an edit history consisting as it does of nothing but posts to this thread), or have you previously contributed under another name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I had enough of this nonsense. I don't want to waste my time fighting rotten admins and biased editors with hidden agenda. Wikipedia become a place where content is easily manipulated for personal purposes by a group of admins and long time editors who either satisfy their own ambitions to be "important" or just take money from interested parties for manipulating public opinion. The general public (like me) seems quite naive about Wikipedia perceived objectivity and "collective" editing process. Looks like all these things are in the past. I will be teaming up with my good friend who is a reporter for New York Times to prepare an editorial "Wikipedia: behind the curtains". The article will discuss abuse of powers by "old boys club" of admins, using WP technicalities to remove valid content in order to manipulate and misrepresent facts, bushing editors who speak the truth against authority users, etc. We will use the history of manipulating brain training programs as an example, so some of you will find yourself very popular soon. Hopefully, this editorial will educate readers that they CANNOT any longer trust Wikipedia content. For those admins who want to collaborate and provide examples similar to infamous Lumosity, Cogmed, Arrowsmith School, etc. please email me at Thanks for educating me on politics of WP and goodbye! Wiki-shield (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone who replied to my message above: I received 17 emails with examples of abuse and proposals to collaborate in less then 2 hours! Looks like there are still quite a few honest admins/editors here who want to make Wikipedia a better place. Wiki-shield (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
And that's supposed to help your case? Guy (Help!) 15:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It will certainly help, Mr. Chapman. I just learned from my friend's assistant that you managed to insert 791 links to your personal site from different WP pages using your profile signature and then changed the profile - nice job! :) BTW, both sites that you claim to help with are also linked from WP pages - somehow I'm not surprised here... Wiki-shield (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The IP poster above also looks very suspicious--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget to dredge up the Ecopave spammer's nonsensical claims of affiliate marketing while you're at it. That's always good for a laugh. There are actually 792 links to my website on Wikipedia, quite a few of which were not added by me at all. I did indeed link my website in my sig for a short while in 2005, but stopped as soon as someone pointed out this was frowned upon. It would pain me not a bit if they were all removed.
What you're doing, you see, is exactly what you've been doing all along: deciding you're right, that everybody who disagrees with you is evil and corrupt, and then looking for data to support your preconceived conclusions. That's a great way to be wrong, to keep on being wrong, and to get more and more wrong over time. I do not give a toss about Cogmed. I do not give a toss about Luminosity either. I have to look the names up by scrolling up thread because they are not even significant enough to me to be able to reliably remember the names. Just because you are here solely to wage war over this, don't assume that anybody else is. Wikipedia, as a body corporate, has no dog in this fight at all. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
This can't be good... Zhanzhao (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── So, Wiki-shield is a sockpuppet. Someone uninvolved please wield the banhammer. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That's another good one... I just learned from another editor (sorry, I am new to WP) how you linked my account and account of my business partner John. Did any of you wise guys considered that more than one person in the office (or even household) can contribute to Wkipedia? As for your "do not give a toss about XXX" statements above, probably you shouldn't edit articles where you have no interest nor knowledge... Wiki-shield (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
See WP:BROTHER. We have been round this loop many times with many different people. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
But do be on the lookout for that hard-hitting NYT editorial exposing the grungy back-room dealings of Wikipedia! I know that the Times is always looking for a {hummm-ha-um, oh, excuse me, just bored myself there) breaking story like that to latch on to. We should be seeing it right after they expose (for the 300th time) just what goes into hot dogs. (Incidentally, threatening to go to the press is yet another one of the "chilling effect" threats which should be met with an indef threat.) BMK (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't do much for an editor's chances of getting what he wants (unless what he wants is a ban). Guy (Help!) 16:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikishield has been indef'd as a sock of Mishash, Mishash has been blocked 1 week as a sockpuppeteer. There's no question in my mind that the users operating these accounts are not here to do general article development within Wikipedia's content and behavior rules. However they appear on User Talk:Bbb23 to be saying (with the blocked sock) that they're done editing anyway. Probably best to just ignore these accounts per WP:DENY, but if trouble returns in a week with the main account we can deal with it at that time. Zad68 16:30, 26 May 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:AntonioMartin desysopped[edit]

For violation of policy in relation to the account User:Le Pato Frances; AntonioMartin is desysopped. They may only regain the tools through a successful request for adminship.

Supporting: Courcelles, Doug Weller, GorillaWarfare, Guerillero, LFaraone, Roger Davies, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, Yunshui

For the Arbitration Committee;

Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#User:AntonioMartin desysopped

Guideline against going into details on ways of being abusive[edit]

This recent thread reminded me to ask if we have any guideline that says that reminds users (esp. admins) not to give details beyond the specifics of a current case, of how to be disruptive. I think if this doesn't exist, it might be worth considering. Samsara 01:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you looking for something like WP:BEANS? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
You are right, that seems to have the essence of it. I think it might have to be polished up a bit to be taken seriously. At the moment, it seems to be a gallery of unfortunate buttons plus a nursery story. Is this state of things something we're quite attached to? I was hoping there might be something more straightforward and polished like "WP:Avoid teaching disruptive behaviours". Samsara 01:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
If there were, it would probably be in the "See also" section there; since there isn't, I'd say we don't have one. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Security through obscurity is weak. Now that doesn't mean we shouldn't respect WP:BEANS but to try to elevate it to guideline status would be problematic. There are lots of reasons it may be useful to discuss potential methods of being abusive, and it would involve lots of complexity to try and thread a line between useful discussion aimed at protecting Wikipedia, and harmful discussion that unnecessarily discusses methods of abuse. (or information useful to those looking to be abusive) Given how well people tend to obey WP:BEANS already, I think the status-quo is fine, we are effectively not talking about them, without having to have a prohibition. Monty845 03:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Kerckhoffs's principle applies here. You cannot hide information like "what is the most effective way of disrupting Wikipedia?" -- it will simply be published at if you try. Having the information hidden from those who fight vandalism yet easily discoverable by any vandal who knows how to use google is a bad thing, not a good thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
There are things we can't reasonably keep secret. And there are details that we need to mention publicly, partly necessary for reasonable transparency. However, anything that isn't simple to figure out, public knowledge, or necessary to inform the public of, we don't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Everybody seems to always wrongly assume that this is an argument about obscurity as a binary property. It isn't. It's a question of entropy. If you widely disseminate an instruction, even to the marginally interested, you'll get more takers. Samsara 10:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Not necessarily so. This is like the old fear that if you teach children sex education, they'll start having sex. Liz Read! Talk! 10:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Relevant Signpost piece. Samsara 11:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The plain truth is that choosing to not widely disseminate this sort of information is not an option that is available to us. We don't control the Internet. and if we try to suppress the information here on Wikipedia all we will accomplish is triggering the Streisand effect. Security through obscurity is one of those fundamental errors that seem like a really good idea but in practice is a disaster. Wikipedia instead needs to follow the principle of Secure by design and make all such information publicly accessible and easy to find. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that it is OK to allow a vulnerability to exist if few people know about it. Instead, do the right thing, publicize the flaw, and then work to make it so that the vulnerability no longer exists. For example. publicizing the fact that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is publicizing a security flaw: anyone can vandalize Wikipedia. Does this mean we should try to hide the fact that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit? No. It means we should figure out better and better countermeasures to the vandalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Security through obscurity may be weak, but carefully publishing a list of all the exploits that are currently known to be effective, even if your context is "stuff we're fixing right now", is foolish. BEANS is really about not encouraging people to try deleting the main page just to see if it works (and in more contexts than just vandalism), rather than closing our eyes and pretending that so long as we're not aware of a problem being widely published, then no problems actually need to be fixed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
A lot of it isn't vulnerabilities that we can really fix, so much as policy compromises, or just common practice that leave room for someone to maneuver around them to avoid our first several lines of defense against disruption. As an example, it would be trivial for someone who wanted to vandalize to review how cluebot works, and vandalize in ways that wont trigger it. Now we have more lines behind that, but that doesn't mean we should just tell people how they would get past that first one for the hell of it. Monty845 19:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Silent Hills#Proposed merge with P.T. (demo)[edit]

In the future, please place closure request at their proper location, which is WP:ANRFC. Thanks! ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:16, 27 May 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.

Requesting consensus from an experienced editor. Been an inactive discussion for awhile. Also there has been probably a little too much improvement on the article to probably suppport the merge. Jhenderson 777 20:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll do it. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:16, 27 May 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.

Percentage of an article written by an editor[edit]

And that is that. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:08, 28 May 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 seem to remember a tool somewhere which would look at the history of an article and determine what percentage of the article was written by a specific editor (or all the contributors to the article). Anyone know what I'm talking about? Thanks for any help. Face-smile.svg ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

On the History page for each article, you'll see a "Revision history statistics" link. Hit that link then scroll down the page and you'll see percentages by number of edits and amount of text for the top 10%. BMK (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew it was somewhere, but it's been a while since I used it. Thanks! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
My pleasure! BMK (talk) 23:08, 27 May 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.

What can you tag for if a BLP has only links to Youtube[edit]

Which is the case here Mišo Bojić, the person had them as refs which I moved them to EL's but not sure if it would go for deletion or what! Wgolf (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, unsourced BLPs should be deleted, not just tagged and left. --TS 00:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I do agree-but a few days ago a admin did delete some of the prods from articles that had no refs but just els (to the IMDB and other places like that) so as of late I'm not even sure anymore to put a BLP prod as of now...Wgolf (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP unsourced issues seem to be different depending on the admin[edit]

Okay for example-several articles have been deleted with EL's to places while a few days ago I got a notice saying not to put a BLP prod up if they have ELs! (I even got a undo one time when the EL was to Linked in!) Like here: Paul McGill (actor)-was removed as there was a EL to the IMDB. I am getting too confused now over what to count as a BLP prod and not! Same with Jon McBride (filmmaker). Though others with EL's only to there are prodded so yeah. Wgolf (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

See WP:BLPPROD: " To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.)," If it has an external link, it is not eligible for BLPPROD. Anyone who deletes an article with an external link as BLPPROD is doing so against policy. That doesn't mean they need to be punished. It just means they need to be told to stop. --Jayron32 01:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I use to not put up BLP prods if there were el's but since I was seeing some getting deleted with EL's as of late it is getting crazy. (Though if the el is Twitter/Facebook/Linked in/stuff like that...) It does get confusing. Wgolf (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that having an external link does not make an article immune to deletion. It just means that BLPPROD cannot be the rationale. There are many other reasons to delete something. If an admin is deleting things with the BLPPROD rationale, and there's an external link in the article, it shouldn't be deleted. Now, there are rationales like WP:CSD#A7 which require that the article doesn't make any credible assertions of importance. SO if an article said something like "Billy is a cute kid and sits next to me in math class" and nothing else, BUT included an external link to an article about Billy written up in a local newspaper, it would not be eligible per BLPPROD, but would be per A7. If, however, a credible claim of importance is asserted, and the article includes at least one reference or external link, it should only be deleted by more deliberative processes, such as regular PROD or AFD. --Jayron32 01:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Monu1009 (talk · contribs) vandalism[edit]

The user has signed up yesterday, vadalized a couple of page (here and here). He was given a warning by a bot on his his talk page, then vandalized another one. He was given another warning and then vandalized the same page, again, twice (here and here). His edits are exclusively for disruptive purposes and I think he should be blocked. Hansi667 (Neighbor Of The Beast) a penny for your thoughts? 09:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done - In the future, you can report simple cases of vandalism such as this to WP:AIV. Best, Tiptoety talk 09:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Edits from IP ranges[edit]

Can someone point me to the tools for seeing the contributions from an IP range? This works but the display is not very user-friendly. Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Here you go, Abecedare, the IPv4 Range Tool and while we're at it, here is a good IPv4 calculator. What we need is a tool to see IPv6 ranges. Good to see that you are carrying the bit again. :)
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Berean. That's exactly what I was looking for. Abecedare (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome. Remembering a thread from a couple of weeks ago, Bishonen may like the above tools as well.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"outdated" put on dozens of pages without reason.[edit]

 Done Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Glitched RFC needs a close[edit]

Fox News Channel RfC has been open for 9 1/2 months. I believe the automated RfC maintenance software was confused by a fictional year-2252 comment date someone created in a how-to-vote example.

Micro summary: RfC asked about usage of "some" vs "many" in the lead. Late in the process a few editors came up with an alternate well sources wording. That alternate appears to have been stable for the last 7 months. I suggest a No Consensus on the "some vs many" question, and some non-binding comment that the article now has a stable alternate wording. Alsee (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Frogger3140 claiming standard offer[edit]

There is a clear consensus to unblock Frogger 3140, provided he clearly sticks to one account and does not engage in any sockpuppetry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:43, 29 May 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.

Frogger3140 (talk · contribs) was blocked way back in 2008 for vandalism. Nearly seven years on, he's filed an unblock request saying he's now grown up a lot and is willing to play by the rules. Does anyone have any objections if I unblock him? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If they explain that they're interested in editing and what they plan to do when unblocked, then I don't see why not. Sam Walton (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest checking with Tiptoety - the block reason he gave indicates that he felt there was a disctinct similarity to Grawp/JarlaxleArtemis, which would need to be taken into consideration. Yunshui  11:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Must confess I'm not really seeing it myself, but I've asked Tiptoety to comment here. Yunshui  11:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't really remember this case, as it was 2008. But from what I can see, the block was the result of "Grawp like" page moves. An example can be found here. Tiptoety talk 22:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • You mean it could be Grawp, Tiptoety? Surely not. I can't fathom why Grawp would take the trouble to try to get an old account unblocked. He can't have run out of open proxies, can he? I tend towards supporting an unblock. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC).
  • Ah, no, that's not what I mean. What I mean is he was intentionally making edits to trigger the Grawp edit filters without explanation. In the grand scheme of things I don't see him as a big nuisance. Tiptoety talk 20:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the time that has passed, I would unblock, with a one-account restriction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

+1, and certainly with a one-account restriction. That's not an onerous bar to clear. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Unblock Yes please definitely let him back in. He did the right thing by admitting to his sockpuppetry and I really cant see any way we could legitimately support maintaining the block when he could have just lied and said he was a new user. Soap 06:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Unblock Thanks for the clarification, Tiptoety. He's been open about socking as User:Macbookair3140, but that was a few years ago, and I can't see any evidence of anything more recent. I'm inclined to let him come back. Yunshui  08:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Unblock There seems to be no reason to continue this block given the post on the editor's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Unblock Request for unblock on an account this old is a pretty clear indication of good faith. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 15:26, 29 May 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.

School block of IP[edit]


Not sure how you go about apealing an IP block that

a) is and probably will be totally valid for the near future due to the way the network works at a location

b) isn't currently causing an issue (to the best of my knowledge).

So hear goes.

I am a relativley recent employee of the organisation it relates to (and will be going and declaring my COI in the not too distant future) as nessecary.

The IP address has been blcoked as a school block. While the vandalism is quite likely to be from a school the ip address is actually the routing point for all of the traffic from the Council including all the schools and other offices in the County. As part of an event we are thinking of hosting later in the year we were hoping on having several students accessing, editing and using wikipedia as a reference material in one location to see how the articles about their schools either exist or dont need updating or not and how to go about doing so with regards to how data can be accurate.

Is it possible to get consensus to grant a temporary release from the block (if the event goes ahead) and if so how would we need to go about doing so. The blocking admin JamesBWatson has advised they are busy so may not reply hence coming here. Amortias (T)(C) 11:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • I've got no problem with that. Sounds like a good event, and I would have no problem releasing the block. Blocks are cheap, and if vandalism begins anew, we can always put it back. It's really not a big issue. --Jayron32 11:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Aye thats what I thought, no guarantee it'll even run but wanted to get the biggest stumbling block out of the way first. Amortias (T)(C) 11:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Amortias: I see no problem with removing the block for the event you mention. However, the IP address has been the source of vandalism for over nine years, with the problem returning each time a block expires, so I would prefer it to be a temporary block-removal, just covering the period in which the event takes place, rather than unblocking now. If and when you do have a definite date, let me or another administrator know in good time, so that the block can be lifted before the event. I also suggest that when the event goes ahead, you get each of the students to start by creating an account, rather than editing anonymously. That way, if vandalism re-starts, and some administrator re-blocks the IP address, the students will not suddenly find that they can't continue with their project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A temporary unblock is probably the best approach. But if anything goes wrong with that, you could either have them create accounts at home in advance, or can create up to 6 yourself, if you needed more than that, anyone with the account creator right could create as many as you needed (or you could just request the user right to do it yourself). Monty845 16:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal/Modification of restrictions on editing on Talk:Gamergate controversy[edit]

I recently declined a request for the indefinite semi-protection of a talk page which led to a discussion on my talk page about the merits of protecting a talk page. While looking for information concerning this topic under a user's request to reconsider I noticed that Talk:Gamergate controversy is both semi-protected and subject to a restriction of needing 500 edits and a minimum account age of a month to even comment on the talk page. This has led to some interesting discussions (Talk:Gamergate controversy#Who Judges Which Is A Viable Source Or Not?) where in order to follow the discussion user has to read the diffs of otherwise valid comments that were removed simply because an editor has less than 500 edits. This restriction has also generated discussion (Talk:Gamergate controversy/Removal of comments from the talk page) about the removal of other's comments from the talk page where it was mentioned that it may be prudent to discuss removing these sanctions here or at AE (I believe that this is a wider forum than would be found at WP:AE).

As a community that welcomes anonymous editing, was built around the idea that "anyone can edit", and the fundamental assumption of good faith. Blocking anonymous/new users from even being able to suggest an edit or make a comment on the talk page is something I find contrary to our goal here. The talk page is not something a reader would normally see unless it was sought out and it is the forum for discussion to take place about changes to the article. As a member of the community and administrator, I believe it should remain open for that discussion in all but the most exceptional cases (WP:HUMAN and meta:Founding principles). Simply removing otherwise valid comments and leaving diffs simply due to an account being below an arbitrary threshold is in my opinion an extremely poor solution for discussion and makes the building consensus considerably harder. Therefore I was curious to see the thoughts of other administrators and editors about this restriction and discuss if there was a consensus by the community to perhaps remove or refine it. Best, Mifter (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Our policies are not a suicide pact and we place high value on not becoming a harbor for character assassination against living people. The ongoing coordinated disruption efforts by a troll harassment group merit unusual protections to ensure our ability to improve the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This page-level sanction an interesting experiment that Zad68 is attempting. I'm not sure how effective it will be but I'm curious to see how it will turn out. At Wikipedia we are committed to open access and assuming good faith, but that commitment, as the saying goes, need not be a suicide pact. For nearly a year, parties have openly colluded offsite to attempt to manipulate the Wikipedia articles regarding this subject. They have harassed and doxxed editors off-site, not to mention the low-level harassment of constant drive-by attacks on the talk page. This seems a reasonable restriction given the specific circumstances of this page, and one we can revisit when it has been in place long enough that we can judge its effectiveness. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but it has been a long time since it has been the encyclopedia where anyone can edit any page at any time for any reason, otherwise we should just unprotect the main page now. Gamaliel (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
As I've mentioned everywhere, this restriction is to my detriment as I am a bit of a slow editor. That being said, I am fully in favor of it as likely to produce a better article. I am, however, hopeful about the elegance of Zad68's (and now Gamaliel's) solution of subpages. Perhaps an unrestricted subpage could be created? I am not sure if the signal to noise ratio would be worth it, and I am mindful that it's veering close to WP:FORUM territory. Also, of course, there are WP:BLP concerns. But maybe it would be a way to stop (or at least slow) the meta-page discussions? Just a thought. Feel free to tell me how wrong I am! Dumuzid (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I am also interested in seeing how this works out as we do need to be prudent in protecting the encyclopedia despite my concerns. However, using IAR/extenuating circumstances to justify extraordinary action on what is supposed to be a discussion page and not an article is a slippery slope as it risks undermining our core principles of discussing changes and generating consensus for a short term gain. The largest red flag I see with the current system stems from removal of otherwise legitimate comments that further stimulate and contribute to discussion (1 2 and other removals in the history) simply because of a user not meeting an arbitrary threshold. I would like to see some way to allow useful comments/discussion without the blanket removing/rejection of comments, my first thought was something like the Huggle Whitelist but I'm not sure it would be practical. I see the 500 edit/30 day requirement as causing too much collateral damage for a talk page that is supposed to allow open discussion and invite differing viewpoints in how to structure the article. Mifter (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
"collateral damage"???? The theoretical "collateral damage" of a good faith account having to wait 20 more days to join a topic against the actual repeated damage of throwaway accounts spreading libel and aspersions against living people. The option supporting the betterment of the encyclopedia is quite clear. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Mifter, I don't think it is possible to compare this article to other articles seen as "controversial". Take an hour and wander through the 38 archived talk pages and look over the circular debates, the questions that are asked over and over and over (X30), the drive-by name calling and insults that were commonplace on this talk page. And this is 38 pages over a period of TEN months. I don't think you can underestimate how divisive this talk page once was. At this point, the sources have been examined and reexamined in detail, and nothing revolutionary is going to happen. Gamergate was an event that is over and right now only exists on message boards. It's a matter of polishing up the article and protecting it from vandalism. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted this restriction was enacted in response to an arbitration enforcement thread [8] alleging battleground behavior by TheRedPenOfDoom. As best I can tell the closing administrator's motivation was to limit potentially triggering behavior, to the extent possible. (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
With the greatest respect, the core principle has already been undermined. The Encyclopedia Everyone Can Edit is here being transformed to the encyclopedia that any well-organized and well-funded PR organization can subvert. Gamergate tactics have involved recruiting an apparently endless stream of new, IP, and zombie accounts which appear in campaigns, organized offsite. Often, these campaigns reopen questions that had been settled before -- two week intervals have been very common -- under the pretext that the “new” editors could not have participated in them. The result has been well over a million words of Talk Page, literally dozens of BLP violations including persistent discussion of the sex lives of women in the software industry, dozens of bans and blocks, an ARBCOM case, an extraordinary amount of admin work, and newspaper coverage that has ranged from highly critical of Wikipedia to derisory. The suicide pact in this case contemplates the suicide of the project, nothing less. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This seems like the worst possible system, except for all those others which have from time to time, been tried. Let it run for a while and see how it goes. While it might be tempting to make WP:AGF exceptions, that would, I am afraid, be much more likely to open the door to rampant gaming of the system, as has been seen consistently to date with this subject. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Speaking as a former arb who worked on the nightmare that was the gamergate arbitration case, I agree with Guy. This is by no means an optimal situation, but we have an exceptionally problematic topic area here. Anyone who is both brand new to editing here and drawn like a moth to the flame to this topic at this late date is probably an extremist of one type or another. Is it possible this is preventing good-faaith newbies from particpating? Yes. And that's a shame, but exceptional circumstances call for exceptional solutions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
  • As one involved, I did agree that at the present the 500 edit/30 day limit is a reasonable step to prevent what has been a problem - people that have well-intended issues with the article but that do not have a good feel for how difficult is has been to write this topic within WP policies, while they aren't necessarily disruptive, they aren't helping too much at the time. It is also the case there is known organization of people off site to try to influence the WP article and even if that is well-meaning, that's not the way the encyclopedia is build. But at the same time, we do have problems with editors being overly defensive to a point of page ownership and battleground mentality about closing off any avenue of discussion that is not in line with keeping the page in their desired view, which is creating the hostility and the desire of new editors to come and ask about improvements. The 500/30 restriction should clearly stay or at lest until it has time to try out but this also has to be balanced against editors vigoriously trying to blacklist any discussion that they don't want to deal with, to maintain the openness of the process. --MASEM (t) 17:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Some additional discussion of the topic, if anyone wishes to see more viewpoints: here and here Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 18:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for this alleged off-site organized "campaign" and "collusion" users keep speaking of? There seems to be no such campaign, and that this is a scare tactic and excuse to attack newer users who see the article is (obviously) grossly biased and inaccurate and comment on the discussion page. (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You have, I assume, heard of reddit and 8chan? (I will not link to specific forums or boards.) Since October, both sites have had many discussion threads devoted to the editing of Gamergate-related Wikipedia articles including discussions about specific editors who they think are opposed or sympathetic to their position. It's not collusion in terms of an organized campaign but there is a lot of criticism, complaining and strategizing of ways to approach editing these articles. It might not be as prominent as it was 6 months ago but it still occurs. But I don't think this information is news to anyone who has spent some time editing this subject. Liz Read! Talk! 19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
"discussions about specific editors / a lot of criticism, complaining and strategizing of ways to approach editing these articles" sounds a lot like ANI/article talk pages. If they're discussing ways to vandalize wikipedia or break the rules that's a different story and we should be prepared - could you copy and paste some quotes if you don't want to link them? (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please don't. What they say is irrelevant - we see the results here. BMK (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the evidence is, in part, all those IPs who manage to comment on everything related to this topic area. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Mifter's approach is obviously good in general, but there are several extraordinary features of the gamergate issue that require unusual solutions. I have only occasionally glanced at what is going on yet have noticed a large number of new and reactivated accounts who repetitively repeat recently settled issues, and who will not be dissuaded from telling the world their version of gamergate. Almost all such activity is extremely civil, yet unproductive and exhausting for general editors with an interest in the encyclopedia. I have seen several accounts created as early as 2007 with under 500 edits, and which have been reactivated to engage at Talk:Gamergate controversy—AGF says their views should be individually considered with a week spent explaining the intricacies of WP:BLP and WP:RGW to each of them, but that is not possible in practice. Off-wiki campaigning (and WP:ARBGG) has trained activists in how to be civil in the hope of provoking sanctionable responses from editors who defend the articles. I tried a Google search so I could illustrate that without linking to anything too ugly, but got distracted by rationalwiki which has all that is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, damn those editors, coming back to Wikipedia after creating accounts the better part of a decade ago, endeavouring to improve an article that they feel is flawed, within the rules of Wikipedia! Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that WP:CPUSH is within the rules of Wikipedia is the reason that WP:ARBGG was required, and the reason that there are 38 pages of archived talk, all created in the last nine months. Experienced editors with no axe to grind can see that the influx of new and reactivated accounts is nothing to do with "improve an article"—it's to WP:RGW regardless of what the reliable sources say. Johnuniq (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The data shows [9] more than half of those "38 pages" were created by the top ten editors, all long-term users, and more than 75% by the top 20. So you're wrong - new and resurrected accounts are not the reason there are 38 pages of archived talk. (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
<removed my own comment because I wasn't AGFing (not to mention I misread his comment as assumed he was counting since the restriction was placed, not before> Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 06:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm the admin who place the 500/30 minimum qualification. This discussion is interesting, but other than point any interested readers to what I posted on my User Talk regarding my thoughts, I'm just going to observe for the moment. Zad68 15:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Agree strongly with Guy: the 500/30 bar is the worst possible system except for all the others. In an exceptional situation like this, Zad68's exceptional measures are warranted. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC).

Please redirect a duplicate page[edit]

Hello. Can an administrator please redirect Louis Auguste Say to Louis Say? It is a duplicate page. 'Louis Say' is his most commonly used name. The page creator agreed with me (see my talkpage). Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have merged the two articles, but, since there were two bothers, both economists, Louis Auguste Say and Louis Baptiste Say, I have merged the two articles under the name Louis Auguste Say. I've put a "copied" template on it to indicate where the merged material came from, but it might be easier if an admin would do a history merge of Louis Say and Louis Auguste Say. BMK (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Where do you find Louis-Baptiste Say? There is just Louis Say and then Jean-Baptiste Say, as far as I know. 'Louis Say' is the most commonly used name for Louis, not his full name Louis Auguste, in all the research...Zigzig20s (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Zz20s appears to be correct that their is only one "Louis Say" - the brother is "Jean-Baptiste Say". However, he appears to be incorrect about the WP:COMMONNAME of the subject of the biography, which was clearly (especially given the naming conventions of the time) {Louis Auguste Say", so I remain of the opinion that this is the correct name for the article. If Zz20s's further research doesn't change his mind, it's a simply matter to start a RM. I see no reason for it, however. BMK (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a history merge would be a wise idea because there's a lot of overlapping history at both titles. Graham87 06:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
OK BMK (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Heads up: Return of Anti-Arabism troll[edit]

A few minutes ago, This happened. Same pattern as last week. Just a heads up, this guy went off the rails, requiring a complete lockdown of lots of articles related to the middle east in general, and started creating abusive new accounts. It was about this same time of day as well, so expect this to flare up. Extra vigilance needed. I'm heading to bed soon, so letting everyone else know to keep an eye open. --Jayron32 04:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You are the troll, you filthy anti-Semite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayon32 is a Judeophobic troll. (talkcontribs) 06:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
This one needs a block ASAP for WP:NOTHERE if nothing else. MarnetteD|Talk 06:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Dragons flight. It is possible that other accounts will be created before this is over. MarnetteD|Talk 06:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

a question to all the wikipedians[edit]

*We have guidelines and policies, not laws
  • No other project is beholden to follow our local policies and guidelines
  • This is apparently a duplicate discussion
Beeblebrox (talk) 15:44, 30 May 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.

does this rules about reliable sources valid to all the languages or just in english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

All Wikipedias require reliable sources; but each one has its own specific wording and procedures. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

ok but according to wiki laws it is international law that if you give 5 reliable sources or more and it is very necessary and not redundant for the article you dont have to ask permission from the editors? or only in wiki english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this being discussed somewhere else right now? Here at ANI? You should probably just focus that conversation in one place. Sergecross73 msg me 12:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

no it is someone who reported about 6 books he gave i do not want to edit in english i asking this since i want to edit in my own country so im asking if this law is also international for what i understood there this law is valid in english i want to know if he is international and valid for all the countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay then. Its as OrangeMike just said above, the rules of all languages of Wikipedia are all pretty much the same, though there are small differences in exact wording, or enforcement of rules. I'm not sure I understand your exact question. I understand you're talking about having 5 sources, but I don't understand what exactly you're trying to do with them? What exactly is the core issue? Sergecross73 msg me 14:07, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Well,, the policies and guidelines here aren't laws, much less international laws. Since you are not interested in editing the English Wikipedia, I suggest you pose this question on the Wikipedia in the language you want to edit. Wikipedias are organized according to language used, not by country. This is definitely not a matter for WP:AN. Liz Read! Talk! 14:29, 29 May 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.

List of political parties by region - far too specific[edit]

Hello, I have noticed that the list of political parties has been divided into continents and even some kind of regions within continents, creating a number of very short articles, some of them not even based on any source (such as List of political parties in Middle Africa by country). I think this system is far too specific and the problem is that you can fit all this information, on all countries on one page which would also allow the readers to compare political systems, unlike it is now. Can someone delete these pages and collate them into one, comprehensive one, please?-- (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleting them probably wouldn't help anything. The better choice would be to merge them, a process that just requires some copy/pasting with proper attribution, and then redirect the titles. You should be able to do it; merge them as you see fit, and come back here or go to my talk page if you need help with pagemoves, getting around false positives at the abuse filter, or editing pages that are semiprotected, or if you simply aren't sure how to do something. Nyttend (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Downham Market[edit]


WTF? This is an AFD of an AFD. This nomination wasn't transcluded anywhere and hence didn't get any comments or votes. Delete under CSD G6? (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

yep,  Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh, here are a few AFDs of talk pages that were never transcluded and hence didn't get any comments or votes: (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

One of my hobbies is fishing out lost AfD nominations, but I only look for ones that at least have active AfD tags, and generally complete the delayed nomination if at all possible. If its just lost in wikipedia talk space, its not doing any harm, and may as well be left there. I guess someone could persue deletion of the nominations if they really want to. Monty845 17:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's some more junk: (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and lok these over, but the usual way to go about this is to just tag the pages for speedy deletion, a process you clearly have some familiarity with, rather than posting a thread here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Admin eyes please[edit]

Content has been removed and KoshVorlon warned to be more careful when reverting. Sam Walton (talk) 18:47, 31 May 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.

The article on Cammy_Bell is getting vandalized (so far three times by two different users) it's a BLP issue so I'm not afraid to go over 3RR, but perhaps a block or two or protection might be in order. | this is an example of what's been placed on the page, repeatedly. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 18:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree this needs admin eyes, or at least someone who is a little more careful when reverting than the reporting user, who has in fact been fighting to restore vandalism, apparently unaware they were doing so. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 31 May 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.

Arbitration motion regarding the Infoboxes arbitration case[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

I) Remedy 3.2 of the Infoboxes case is suspended.

II) For a six-month period Gerda Arendt may not add or restore, except for the usual exemptions, an Infobox to any article she did not create, without first either a) obtaining a clear consensus to do so on the article talkpage, or b) her proposal on the article talk page attracting no comments for 72 hours.

III) During this six-month period, she must not, in the opinion of a consensus of administrators at the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard, disrupt any discussion concerning infoboxes.

IV) Gerda Arendt may be blocked for violation of parts II and III. Any such block shall cause remedy 3.2 to be unsuspended; if this is done, the blocking administrator must make the committee aware.

V) If after six months Gerda Arendt has not been blocked under this motion, remedy 3.2 as well as this motion shall automatically lapse.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding the Infoboxes arbitration case


See [10] for an example. A block of IPs is being used to harrass a number of users. Rangeblock may be in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

One of them even went to object to User talk:Lowercase sigmabot III. It's probably the first time I've seen someone make this kind of complaint at a sinebot :-) I've never understood how to perform rangeblocks properly, but tell me what to block and I'll do it. Nyttend (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
These are BT's huge ranges. An edit filter or semi-protection would be more appropriate than trying to block it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
This is going to take edit filter(s) to solve. I made one request, but they have already started adapting behavior. But trying to range block entire /8s, which is what this would take, would cause massive collateral damage. What we really need is a skilled edit filter manager to take this on. Monty845 17:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
If you can pinpoint some typical behaviour that would catch their edits then an edit filter would seem like a good option. Sam Walton (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I have sent an abuse report to the ISP (BT) on these IPs. Esquivalience t 18:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The last set of edit summaries (Special:Contributions/ was "edit filters are terribly unfair". I propose a 48 hour rangeblock to stop his fun, and see if the boring tit goes away. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@JzG: What rangeblock(s) are you suggesting we enact? Monty845 21:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC) and, softblock for 48 hours. Both BT Cantral Plus. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I should also note the IP troll has an edit summary of "tbh not a massive fan". The IP has made me one of its targets (he frequently writes on AN/I, vowing to vandalize my page when the semi-protection is lifted on June 2) and a 48 hour rangeblock won't slow them down.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Final Day of WMF Board of Trustees Election[edit]

Just a friendly reminder that WMF Board of Trustees Election will be ending in about 24 hours! So if you want to contribute your opinion on who should be part of the highest level leadership of the WMF, now is the time. Dragons flight (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean those bloody banners will stop showing up? Chillum 04:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
lol! But can't they be disabled within Preferences? Or aren't admins allowed to block them? (No pun intended.) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 Done Voted! Liz Read! Talk! 14:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Huh? I dismissed the banner after voting and it never came back. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe that if you clear cookies, then they'll re-appear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I voted on the first day, dismissed the banner and yet it still returns... In different colours too... I do tend to move betweens computers frequently, that would cause it to reappear I guess. I don't want to turn them all off but dang they are annoying. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Final Day of WMF Board of Trustees Election[edit]

Just a friendly reminder that WMF Board of Trustees Election will be ending in about 24 hours! So if you want to contribute your opinion on who should be part of the highest level leadership of the WMF, now is the time. Dragons flight (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean those bloody banners will stop showing up? Chillum 04:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
lol! But can't they be disabled within Preferences? Or aren't admins allowed to block them? (No pun intended.) Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 Done Voted! Liz Read! Talk! 14:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Huh? I dismissed the banner after voting and it never came back. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe that if you clear cookies, then they'll re-appear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I voted on the first day, dismissed the banner and yet it still returns... In different colours too... I do tend to move betweens computers frequently, that would cause it to reappear I guess. I don't want to turn them all off but dang they are annoying. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 15:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Log-Linear model :: edit the title[edit]

Please forgive me if this is not the correct place to post this but...

I've recently corrected the title of '', by moving the page from 'Log-linear_model' to 'Log-Linear_model', but I think that the 'm' in the title should also be capitalized.

I'm a new user and the system prevented me from making this adjustment.

Maybe a user with more gravitas will assist me in making this amelioration.

S.Matthew English (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@H1395010: I've moved it back to the lower-case title, because Wikipedia does not usually capitalize things like that (see the relevant [[naming conventions and capital letters guidelines). Graham87 08:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Graham but look at this article, from one of the most respected and accomplished researchers in this field, see the convention that he follows, why would we follow a different one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by H1395010 (talkcontribs) 08:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia follows its own style guide not that of other people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's often the case: we think we know better than the experts. However, H1395010, I think you misunderstand: when I search the loglinear.pdf for linear, most appearances are "log-linear model", and "Log-linear Model" or "Log-Linear Model" almost always appear in titles, where title case is common and words get capital letters even though they don't in most other cases. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I just made a huge mistake and don't have time to fix it right now[edit]

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

I was intending to mass delete pages created by a blocked user, but I clicked on the wrong one and mass deleted everything created by User:CookieMonster755 instead. The second I realized my error, I was called into work, I have to go right now and probably won't be free agaion for several hours. Feel free to assault me with many wet fish, but if someone could fix this mess I'd appreciate it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh no... All my wonderful work is gone Cry.png It's okay Beeblebrox, I forgive you. That was much hours of work though. Hopefully an admin can fix it.... Cheers... CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm working from the back of the list, if anyone else wants to start at the more recent. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm working down from the top (most recent) based on deletion order. Monty845 23:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you everybody Face-grin.svg. Hopefully this does not have a bad impact on my WMFLabs Xtools review of my article creation log and account statics. CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks like it is all sorted now. Cheers --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
@CookieMonster755: You may want to check to see if anything was delinked by bots or otherwise while deleted, particularly files which can be de-linked really quickly. Also leaving an appropriate trophy for Beeblebrox.
Rainbow trout transparent.png
Monty845 23:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you everybody, you are wonderful! I understand that anybody even admins can make mistakes ;) Don't stress Beeblebrox, you're discipline has been served ;P Cheers, cheers - CookieMonster755 (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I also see you restored the files, thank you :) I also made a mistake - I reuploaded a logo that was deleted by accident, but you restored it so there are duplicate logos. Could you please delete the duplicate, here. Thanks Face-grin.svg CookieMonster755 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Monty845 00:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all. Rest assured I feel appropriately stupid. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
If it is any consolation, I got a really good laugh reading about this. At least you didn't delete the Main Page. Face-wink.svg Dragons flight (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I need to regain my bit so I can do that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:STOCKS material, perhaps? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it quite gets there, it was less than 100 pages. Gotta be at least a couple thousand I'd say. Monty845 12:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Agreed; the stocks is for when you do something unprecedented, either in its nature (nobody's made that mistake before!) or extent (nobody's made that mistake so spectacularly before!), and this is nothing compared to "I missed that day at target practice". Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I just wanted to say that this is a great example of Wikipedia really working together. Someone makes a mistake, and people immediately pitch in and fix it. Thanks to all of you for being fabulously collegial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 1 June 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.

Quick question/close request for a self-blanked AfD[edit]

Good-faith housekeeping error. (non-admin closure) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:55, 2 June 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.

AfD creator @Rhumidian: quickly blanked the nomination, with the original userspace draft successfully moved to mainspace. I reverted and proposed a procedural speedy keep as a de facto withdrawal, but then Rhumidian cleared everything again. Not going to dawdle at more reverting or anything, I'm just going to request it officially closed here for them.

And for future reference, what is the best course of action here? Revert and NAC or nominate a G7? Thanks. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 08:18, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems pretty obvious to me that they just wanted to get rid of the leftover redirtect and just did it wrong. Deleted the actual page per U1, deleted the afd per g6, afd cannot be used to delete pages in userspace, and the nominating editor apparently didn't mean to do it in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, got it. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:16, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that guys, Meant to delete the user age space after i redirected the page into the mainspace. I did it wrong. Looks sorted now.Rhumidian (talk) 14:11, 1 June 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 Admin Oversight at Talk:Paraguayan War[edit]

Currently there is a renaming discussion in progress at Talk:Paraguayan War#Requested move 25 May 2015. As previous requests have resulted in some bad tempered discussions and the latest addition is a rather obvious personal attack on the proposer (myself) [11] I am requesting admin oversight to keep things on track. WCMemail 20:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to me like a personal attack to be honest. Also, if I may, this war is universally known throughout the Spanish-speaking world as Guerra de la Triple Alianza. No one calls it "Guerra de Paraguay" or whatever (although I suppose this might be the same situation as Varusschlacht vs Battle of Teutoburg Forest). And your proposal doesn't make sense - is there another Triple Alliance somewhere in the world? I don't understand the "South America" DAB part of the proposed title. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
There have been several Triple Alliances. DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I should have said "was there another War of the Triple Alliance". §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
No there hasn't been as far as I know and it is pretty much known in the English speaking world as the War of the Triple Alliance. In Brazil, its known as the Paraguayan War; those advocating the current name tend to be members of Project Brazil. I added the moniker (South America) as the closer of the last request based his close on the premise it could be confused with other "Triple Alliances" (although confusingly there are at least 3 separate Wars known variously as the Paraguayan War in English). The previous discussion was stupidly bad tempered and I don't wish to see a repeat. WCMemail 21:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── [12] Lecen (talk · contribs) is now refactoring my talk page posts, please could someone remind him of