Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive284

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

Noticeboard archives


Eschweiler error message[edit]

Fixed De728631 (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

At Eschweiler the following error message appears at the top of the page: [[Category:Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character ",". in North Rhine-Westphalia]]. After checking the entire article twice I can't find the source for this error. Could someone please have a look, thanks noclador (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Fixed by User:Jo-Jo Eumerus [1] Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2016 (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.

PROD backlog building up[edit]

I haven't had time to go through it in the past few days, but the WP:PROD backlog is about a week past when this stuff should have been killed, so more hands with the admin bit and spare time would be most welcomed. You can work directly from Category:Expired_proposed_deletions, though I usually work from the fabulously useful and helpful WP:PRODSUM - David Gerard (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done I've taken care of it. De728631 (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2016: Reminder[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is currently seeking candidates for CheckUser and Oversight appointments. As a reminder to interested editors, completed application questionnaires are due by email at 23:59 UTC, 20 September 2016. Please contact the committee at to request a questionnaire or if you have any questions about the process. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Last call, deadline is today! (And if you think you've requested or returned a questionnaire but haven't heard from us, please send us an email ASAP!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Fractional-reserve banking[edit]

This is a run of the mill content dispute. Take it to the article talk page. In the event of a real complaint of editor misconduct, ANI is this way. (non-admin closure)- Ad Orientem (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2016 (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 have a question for you: Can anyone please explain why I am being harassed by TWO self-called "PhD" editors on this above page? My edit is sourced to WP:RS and the editors have nothing to say about it (just edit warring without any valid explanations). Thanks. (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear user at IP I am one of the editors who reverted an edit you made. However, I am not a "self-called PhD editor," so it's unclear how you're coming up with that verbiage. You made an edit, and I reverted you -- only once. When other editors revert an edit you have made in this way, that is not "harassment." Indeed, you are engaging in a edit war, as you have repeatedly reverted other editors instead of discussing your edit on the talk page for the article. You are the person proposing the addition of the material to the article. Under the rules of Wikipedia, you need to persuade other editors -- not the other way around. Famspear (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The IP is edit-warring unsourced OR into the article. Semi-protection is needed. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I reverted and warned. The next reinstatement should be followed by a block. For the record, invoking CENSORSHIP really is an automatic no-no, but, as I indicated in my edit summary, even an admin, with or without Ph.D., can see that the sourcing is below par and so is the writing: it begins with a referential pronoun without a clear antecedent, and it ends with weasel words. In between is Investopedia, whose status as an RS is at best unclear. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Not true at all. I did provide 2 sources linked to RS. If you don't understand then YOU should be the one asking, sir/madam.

I was reverted without ANY explanation or edit summary and yes it looks like harassment by that 2nd editor. The rest is details that do not belong to this discussion. To others watching: do not stand still and show crooks that your are alert, watching and acting. Thanks. (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I am the second editor, and no, my one reversion of your material does not "look like harassment." You have now been reverted by at least three editors.
You would bring more WP:meatpuppets that it would not matter. It is the argument and its validity that matters the most. (talk)
I am not sure what you mean by the use of the word "crooks," but Wikipedia has rules: Assume good faith, WP:AGF and no personal attacks WP:NPA. Famspear (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I mean the international bankers (not you or anyone else as far as I know).

On my talk page, the user at IP47.17.18.64 has now admitted that the source for the material in his edit is actually something he claims to have been taught in school in Switzerland. Famspear (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC) ÷ ───────────────────────── Dear Sir/Madam: you should have asked me to add proper citation by simply adding [citation needed] - but you did not need to remove that information altogether (censorship) - unless you believe it is not true on its face...Do you believe it is not as said in that paragraph? If so, in what way? and yes it is quite simple to understand (for me at least - I have an advanced degree in finance from the US and Switzerland and am multi-lingual). (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you have an advanced degree in finance and the fact that you are multi-lingual are not good enough. You have to follow the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. And, no, where other editors remove your Original Research, which you based on a source that did not say what you claimed, is not censorship. Again: You have to follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines.
No, it is not "the argument" and "its validity" that matters the most. What matters the most is following the rules, especially: WP:NOR and WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Famspear (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I do not agree that "following the rules" matters the most. In article space, what matters is a. content be verifiable and b. it be verifiable by way of reliable sources. See WP:RS. Sir/madam, I repeat that the reliability status of Investopedia is as yet undetermined, but you are welcome to test it out at WP:RSN--click on the link and you'll see what I mean. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2016 (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.

Article splitting protocol[edit]

Creepy pasta split content from European Open (snooker) and created a new article at European Masters (snooker). I did not agree with the split and nominated the new article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Masters (snooker). As you see at the discussion opinion was split in regards to the new article, and the AfD was closed as "no consensus", although the closing admin noted that this defaults to a "keep". Following the close Creepy pasta interpreted this as a mandate to remove the content from European Open (snooker). On the other hand, I disagree that the "no consensus" amounts to a sanction of the split per WP:PROSPLIT which states a "contested bold split may be reverted, however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own even if the main article that it came from is not split". There was never any discussion about splitting and Creepy pasta did not obtain a consensus for the split. I have read the help guidelines several times now and I am still confused as to how the close of the deletion discussion should be interpreted in regards to the original article. Would someone please be kind enough to answer the following questions:

  1. Does the "no consensus" result and the automatic "keep" implicitly mandate the removal of the content split from the original article?
  2. If it does not, should the content that is being split out remain in the original article until there is an explicit consensus to remove the content from the article?

Any guidance would be much appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Sorry, I don't get it. First of all, in your deletion nomination, why didn't you mention what you say here, that the new article was a split? No wonder Kudpung said "default to keep" and to start a merge discussion, since he probably didn't know it was a split. Which brings me to another point: I don't see how it is a split, really. The article is created here, but if anything is taken from the article and placed in here, I can't really see it. The next edit puts meat on those bones, I think--hard to tell since the visual flag porn is so overwhelming I don't even want to look at it. But that content, as far as I can tell, did not come from the "original" article, did it? In which case there is no attribution missing, there was no split, Kudpung was right, and all this should have started not with edit warring and a deletion discussion, but with an invitation to discuss merging. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I admittedly should have made it clearer at the AfD that the new article (European Masters (snooker)) was created by splitting out content from European Open (snooker). As for the 2016 European Masters article, this isn't contested: each annual event has a dedicated article such as 2004 European Open (snooker) and 2005 Malta Cup, and this article should definitely exist. The debate is about the event series article which documents all instances of the event. This is the sequence of events:
I dispute that a default "keep" of the new article means we should delete relevant content from the European Open (snooker), because it then means that the main series article would be lacking essential information for readers who want an overview of the history of the tournament. What I don't understand is how AfD close impacts on European Open (snooker). Obviously European Masters (snooker) has won its existence by recycling content from European Open (snooker), but does that mean the content should now be removed from European Open (snooker), or does the editor still require an explicit consensus to delete the content from the older article? Betty Logan (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment Sorry I did that, I really thought it would be ok. My point is, why can't you remove the data from the European Open until it's officially confirmed maybe? It's easier after to do it than to remove all the misinfo (potentially). Creepy pasta (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment Btw, I still don't believe it's the former European Open, now potentially rebranded as you say. I can't find enough proves. That's way in the first place I simply created a new event page. Why do you want to link a European Masters event to a European Open? It would be nice to continue the lineage, but I am not sure. Creepy pasta (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
We are not debating what you believe or what I believe; that discussion has been run and resulted in "no consensus". The purpose of this discussion is to ascertian the procedural consequences of that discussion i.e. does the existence of the new article implicitly mandate the removal of the content from the original article or does there have to be an explicit consensus to remove the content from the article. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment The AfD was closed as 'no consensus' a) because there was no rough consensus, b) because it was the wrong venue for such a proposal for discussion anyway. The actual closure is not being challenged - if it were, the the discussion should be at WP:DELREV. So we are left with the fact that as there has been no egregious user or admin behaviour requiring admin action, ANI also is the wrong venue and is taking up valuable admin time having to review this thread. WP:DRN might be a possible solution, but again, I don't see the need for 3rd party arbitration. Thus AFAICS, the proper course is a RfC for or against merge and/or split, whatever, on the talk page of one of the affected articles, and notifying all the major contributors to those articles of the discussion. I think that would be the fairest way to approach the issue rather than gum up various noticeboards. But you would need to make a very clear, appropriate, and unambiguous RfC proposal statement, and that's something you can work together nicely to produce. However, I'm not mandating this in any way, and perhaps Drmies or someone else might have a better idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I have started a "split/merge" discussion at Talk:European_Open_(snooker)#RFC:_Should_the_European_Masters_entry_be_split_from_this_article_to_a_new_article.3F. Is this unambiguous enough or is there something else I can do to make it clearer? Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Useful contributor[edit]

I seem to have, very opposite my intentions, alienated a potentially highly useful contributor. At this point I don't think he is going to listen to me, so would someone please talk User talk:Diveroli off the ledge? Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@78.26: if it makes you feel any better I thought your comments were very professional and respectful and that the only issue present is a mistake of policy. I hope everything works out becuase I agree that Diveroli would be a great asset to the project. Alicb (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words! Drmies was also kind enough to drop a note, so I think the community has done what it can. Again, thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick admin ruling needed at Donald Trump[edit]

Bishzilla has eaten this discussion per IAR. Bishonen | talk 00:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Per prior (one user) experienced guidance at Village pump (policy), I am requesting an admin to rule whether the 51.8% vote at Talk:Donald Trump#Run-off voting represents sufficient consensus for change to that article's infobox photo. The photo was installed per the voting results and that edit was disputed due to the close vote. It has already been ruled that pure democratic voting, following some 8 days of discussion, is not inconsistent with consensus-building in this specific case, so that is not an issue. ―Mandruss  14:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

If its good enough to elect someone president... (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Well to be fair it would need to be 51.8% of the electoral college, because a candidate COULD get 51.8% of the vote and still lose...RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hint, Hint; Al Gore. Chase (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
so we need an RFC to determine if we need an electoral college, then an request for elector process...this photo should be posted slightly before the Heat death of the universe. (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Percentage is meaningless, even in situations like this. Wait until someone closes it and see what their conclusion and rationale is. I would suggest letting an admin close it, so WP:adminacct will be in play. Dennis Brown - 17:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I look forward to seeing how an admin weighs those very subjective arguments based on visual perception, perspective including the political kind, aesthetic taste, human psychology, and arbitrary judgments about microphones obscuring neckties. Even my argument, which was about Trump's public image, is subjective and without Wikipedia policy basis. Should be interesting. ―Mandruss  18:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: Also, come to think of it, your statement seems inconsistent with admin Nyttend's 11 September solicited opinion, at the end of Talk:Donald Trump#Run-off Discussion. ―Mandruss  19:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:BIKESHED may be good reading for anyone involved in this discussion... --Jayron32 18:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your opinion, Jayron, but I'd say there's a clear local consensus against that view. ―Mandruss  18:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
      • What, that a minor aesthetic issue is sucking a disproportionate amount of energy from a disproportionate number of people? I think the fact that there's a consensus this matters makes my point very well; if no one cared, it wouldn't be a bikeshed issue. That everyone cares a LOT, in a way that is out of whack with the overall impact of solving the problem, is exactly what makes it a bikeshed issue. --Jayron32 14:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
        • I feel that policy WP:CONSENSUS trumps essay WP:BIKESHED. ―Mandruss  15:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
          • Wow. It's like your intentionally ignoring my point. The entire discussion is a waste of organizational resources because the overall importance of the issue is small compared to the manhours dedicated to reaching a solution. You can WP:ALPHABETSOUP at me all day, it won't change the fact that the endeavour is trivial compared to the energy taken to solve it. --Jayron32 23:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
            • @Jayron32: - I guess I misunderstood you, sorry. MrX, I, and the rest totally agree that the time being spent in all that discussion was not warranted for an infobox photo. Since it was unlikely we could reach a local consensus that infobox photos aren't worth considering at all, we sought a way to minimize the time required without sacrificing benefit to the article. We reached overwhelming local consensus on that process, with admin support, and that local consensus was overridden here. The jury is still out on that. ―Mandruss  23:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I closed a very similar RfC relating to Jeb Bush a while back, if I recall correctly. I'll take a look at this tonight. ~ Rob13Talk 18:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Given my previous comments, I'd close the discussion in favor of the majority, but first I'd check to ensure that there's no significant evidence of sockpuppetry or other vote-rigging; it's something about which we have to be careful in one of those rare situations where we're going by the numbers. However, BU Rob13, since you're already planning to do it, I won't get involved. I'll just ask that you look over my previous statements, and then please either follow them carefully, or give a careful explanation of why you're doing otherwise — not because I'm claiming some sort of prestige that may be offended, but because the situation's already been a bit tense. If you follow my comments carefully, people will understand the reasoning, but if you do otherwise and don't explain your reasoning, you'll probably find that a lot of the people on the "losing" side are confused as well as being unhappy. For my own sake, I don't particularly care if you explain yourself; I don't plan to return to this discussion unless someone actively asks me to return. Nyttend (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I quite agree with Nyttend. I am assuming the losing side, which I am apart of in this case, some are going to be very apprehensive in taking this as consensus, so an explaination would probably boad well. I can't speak for them, but am very much in agreeance with any outcome. I actually supported Rob to become an admin, so I trust his judgement no matter what he decides to do. The discussion has been very tense however and a lot of uncivil conversations and accusations have been had, so what Nyttend is saying is 100% accurate. Chase (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • No admin is going to look only at the raw numbers and say "51% like it, so they win", so I would have to see this quote where some admin said something different. WP:CONSENSUS is kind of clear on that. Assuming the votes were all equally swell, that sounds more like a "NO CONSENSUS" situation anyway. Dennis Brown - 19:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I think that's a good point. "Ties" typically result in "no consensus", which usually leads to status quo. But this was a "run off vote" where each person could "cast" 6 votes as they desired so I'm not sure if it's quite the same here. For the record, I'm on the "losing" side and have switched to the WP:IDGAF party... It's just a picture. Neither are objectively horrible quality-wise. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
In that situation, I would be inclined to force it to stay open and make them compromise, see who really wants it, until one has at LEAST 60%. Part of consensus is often debate, which is sometimes tedious but necessary if you want a final answer. No way I would close at 51% vote if I MUST choose a winner. Dennis Brown - 23:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there some reason to believe that the people who participated in this third of three discussions did not understand that it was a majority prevails weighted vote, with a definite end time? How many times does this same discussion need to happen before people stop Wikilawyering and simply accept that more people like one image over another, while acknowledging that both images are roughly equally valid according to our policies? (These are rhetorical questions, so don't feel obligated to answer them).- MrX 01:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: make them compromise - Gotta say, Dennis, we must be editing in different parts of Wikipedia. I've seen that kind of useful give-and-take a few times in my memory, and that was in groups of 2 to 4 relatively unusual editors. Do something like you suggest at an article like Trump and I think the question would be who has the most endurance or tolerance for frustration. If they were capable of such true collaboration, they wouldn't have spent eight contentious days doing anything but that. You propose to send the jury back to the jury room and tell them not to come out until they have a verdict, and I don't see how that can work here. ―Mandruss  04:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

First of all, it's 52% not 51% if you round up. Second, it wasn't even supposed to be this close. The only reason why this got close is because two people changed their votes towards the end, one of them only changed it because he got upset people criticized his suggestion of an entirely new image just hours before voting was supposed to close and he had previously supported picture C for almost the entire 10 day period. Before these changes, the percentage was in the upper 50's. An admin already stated "barring evidence of outright misbehavior, e.g. sockpuppetry or other double voting, the position with the larger number of votes will be deemed to have community consensus for its implementation." Lets just add the winning photo and be done with it already. TL565 (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@TL565: You are allowed to change your vote and that user was advised to change their vote back, but ignored. Chase (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't say they weren't allowed to change their votes, I just said that until the past day or two the winning photo was comfortably ahead for almost the entire voting period. To be more specific, the user struck out his vote because he wanted to introduce a new photo at the last minute, but then voted for other photo when he was criticized for it. TL565 (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
I never saw it above 55. There are larger issues here than one user's perceived disruption. Like whether an opinion like Nyttend's should be set in stone and immune to challenge by a very experienced admin such as Dennis Brown (or any admin). I think not, and I think common practice is in harmony with my view (if not, Nyttend would have made a point of order). I suggest we drop that line of thinking as a dead end. ―Mandruss  03:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
"I never saw it above 55" - Well, you did (57.2%), but then you erased it.- MrX 03:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Got me. I didn't compute % for that one. ―Mandruss  03:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
All I know is that photo C won. I thought it was already agreed that whichever photo got the highest votes gets consensus. That was supposed to end this tiresome discussion, now we need to have one here? It would be ridiculous to suddenly say "Sorry, no consensus because it got too close!" This is exactly like Brexit all over again. TL565 (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
My point is that this isn't just about resolving that one case, but appears to have wider-reaching impact. This is a higher-level discussion and I think we should let it stay at that higher level. You and I are not competent at that level, which is why I've been unusually quiet for me. ―Mandruss  03:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Unless the RFC was set up explicitly with the agreement 'Highest votes win' then standard consensus rules apply. Where arguments are equally weighted (as they are often in subjective 'this looks better' discussions), anything up to a 60-40 split is highly likely to be a no consensus result. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
The system is rigged, believe me folks. You've never ever ever seen anything like this before in history. Drmies (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Many people are saying.- MrX 15:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • From up above: my suggestion of "sending them back to the jury room" (I like that analogy) is not as Pollyanna as it seems. If the alternative is the status quo, those that want change may change their vote to change the status quo. BTW, most of the time, it is easier if you set it up so they give 1st choice and 2nd choice in their votes. Then if it is 52% but that photo received 70% of the second choice votes, it is easier to declare as winner. Some will not choose a 2nd choice but most will if it the poll is worded properly. Dennis Brown - 10:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
If you haven't read Talk:Donald_Trump#Run-off_Discussion, please do. It's not too long and I think sums up the issue fairly well. Please pay particular attention to my comments, since I'm clearly the smartest guy in the room. :D But seriously, this appears to be a conflict between lofty Wikipedia principles and the practicalities of just getting shit done so we can move on. If you feel starting over with a new methodology is the right approach, fine, I'm not opposed. But in the short term that is not "getting shit done", and it will not be particularly popular.
We could also consider WP:IAR here. It does not improve the encyclopedia to spend tons of time on an infobox photo, when there are more important content issues. The only decent potential argument against that is that most of the people debating the infobox photo lack competence at those more important issues, so they don't work on them. I wouldn't know how to answer that question. But they might have the time to increase their competence at those more important issues if they weren't spending it on interminable debates about infobox photos.
If the community feels that infobox photos are in fact important content issues, and I don't reject that completely, that would kill my above argument. But the community has not taken a position on that question. ―Mandruss  12:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
It keeps changing, new photos added at the 11th hour, not a clear vote but instead a group of discussions. And everything here is decided by consensus, not raw vote. Even if you frame it as a raw vote, policy says you can't do that, via WP:CONSENSUS. In situations like this, we can be a bit more flexible (we aren't a bureaucracy), but votes still have to be weighed, not just counted. Personally, I would pass on trying to close that. Dennis Brown - 12:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Meaning no consensus to change. Fine. But we aren't going to stop proposing new photos, and I would dearly love to see something more specific about methodology as to infobox photo selection, as opposed to general statements about policy. We're just not smart enough to figure that out on our own. "Just discuss it until you reach a consensus" creates the illusion of something constructive happening, but the end result is the same as a democratic vote since people do not debate with open minds. Your lofty principles presume and require an element of human nature that is very rare at Wikipedia or anywhere else. ―Mandruss  12:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, a few thoughts on this:

  1. Mandruss should not have closed the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump#Run-off voting. Full stop. He is a participant and should have left closing the request to a neutral party.
  2. Frankly, there are no policy considerations in play here. Both photos are clearly fine and meet any applicable WP requirements. Realistically, the discussion is just a series of points about why editors like one photo more than the other.
  3. Contributors are pretty much split down the middle, with neither side having the better of the argument. That's classic no consensus and usually would result in the status quo being maintained.
  4. However, given that this is basically just about personal preference between images, I see no problem with the dispute being resolved by a straw poll on the basis that a simple majority is required if that option is favoured by those involved. If that is indeed what has happened here, then I can't see a problem with going with the majority view.
  5. But let's get real here, what we have here is a (narrow) majority view, not a consensus.

WJBscribe (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

In my own defense regarding that "close", I see it not as a close but ending the voting at the agreed time and doing the necessary clerk work to count the votes, said counting later verified by someone else. I felt that removed any reasonable need to be uninvolved, and I still do. Counting is not weighing. In any case, we generally don't have closers to select infobox images anyway, precisely because there is no policy basis to evaluate arguments about photo images. This concept has been articulated enough in multiple places, and I have seen no counter to it. ―Mandruss  13:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Geez, where to even start with this. Quite a few points:

  1. Do not set arbitrary "rules" for a discussion, whether or not you are involved in those discussions. That practice has no basis whatsoever in policy and has largely contributed to this mess. It's unclear why people are casting six votes between two options, and it's also unclear why we've set an arbitrary "end deadline" for 10 days after the straw poll started, whether or not consensus has been reached or momentum is moving in one direction.
  2. The proper way to solve such subjective questions on highly-visible articles is an RfC that is well-advertised and runs for 30 days to allow the maximum number of editors possible to express their view.
  3. No, the vote count still doesn't matter. There's no policy or guideline that strips away our consensus-building process on matters of subjective judgement, although it is worth noting that the arguments are unlikely to be weighted in one direction or the other very much. It is possible, though, and throwing up percentages is highly misleading. This is not a vote.
  4. There is no need to actively "clerk" a content discussion (unless there are heavy civility issues, in which case admins should be stepping in). There is especially no need to clerk a discussion you started or a discussion you're involved in. Mandruss, your actions here were not helpful.
  5. All closers are expected to read, understand, and abide by WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINACCT. Describing a close as a maintenance action or something similar does not remove this responsibility. This close clearly violated WP:INVOLVED.

Given the fact that momentum in this poll shifted immediately prior to the close and the poll only ran for 10 days, I've relisted it as an actual RfC this time, hoping to draw in outside perspectives and reach a clearer consensus. I'll close the RfC when the time runs out on it (which will be roughly October 10, 30 days from the original start of the discussion). Feel free to ping me if you think the discussion should be closed but I haven't gotten around to it yet. ~ Rob13Talk 13:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: You changed the discussion from a weighted vote to a "just pick" one" vote in middle of the RfC. Do you think that was wise?- MrX 14:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
For a binary choice? Yes it was. Weighted votes work better for 3 or more options. There is zero benefit and plenty of confusion when a simple 'this one or this one' question is weighted like that. It obfuscates the actual choice that has been made. Given the only real outcome of that discussion is 'no consensus' or 'relist', picking 're-list doing it properly and with less confusing voting' is certainly a valid decision. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Your comment would be valid for a new RfC, not an ongoing one. Changing the way votes will be tallied is not only improper, but it will create confusion for the closer. Again, the purpose of the runoff was not to find consensus. It was to identify most favored image out of the two chosen in the previous consensus. - MrX 15:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There was no 'previous consensus'. There was 'no consensus to change the photo' at which point it was decided to extend the discussion further and eliminate some of the options. There is still no consensus to change the photo. If your argument is that switching from a standard wikipedia consensus discussion to a straight vote is an appropriate way to avoid a 'no consensus' result, well thats not any better. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok, in the end Wikipedia rests on a framework of ivory-tower principles that are incomprehensible to 95% of the editing population, meaning even little issues like infobox photos can't be resolved without admin involvement. The local consensus on the process is apparently not sufficient, despite the presence of some, I don't know, ten (10) very experienced and competent editors including MrX. So the local people are not up to the task of proper Wikipedia editing. I feel this is very problematic and a bit alarming. ―Mandruss  14:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There was no local consensus. The "votes" differed by 1%. Let's be realistic here. @MrX: I'll loop back around and change it back, I suppose. The weighted "vote" isn't very helpful given that it's (a) not a vote, and (b) not particularly indicative of anything when we have only two options. ~ Rob13Talk 14:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There was a clear local consensus as to process. With support from admins NeilN and Nyttend, by the way. ―Mandruss  14:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, BU Rob13, it was a vote. That is how we decided to handle it, per WP:IAR. There was consensus that both images were acceptable, and the vote was to decide on which one was more favored. Do some of you folks really not understand that Wikipedia does not have firm rules? I asked Mandruss to bring this here so an admin would quickly make a determination on a very simple matter. Instead, we're have inane debates about bike sheds and percentage thresholds.- MrX 15:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly as predicted. The 10 days were a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME. So now lets waste even more time for 30 days over a stupid image. Forget this crap. TL565 (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2016 (UTC) There's little over a month until the election. This continual discussion and discrediting of over 40+ editors seems a bit extreme and pointless. Calibrador (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13 has converted the voting to an RfC.[2] Which seems remarkable to my eye, considering the discussion in this thread. I don't see how increasing the number of participants, arguing about it presumably until a couple of weeks before the election, and providing that closer to evaluate the subjective arguments improves anything, but I will watch and learn. So are we done here for the time being, or do we continue to address the larger, more important issues? ―Mandruss  21:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC) Never mind, I can self-answer that question. Wrong venue for those larger, more important issues. ―Mandruss  22:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

In case anybody in this shameful situation is still listening: [3]. ―Mandruss  13:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive283#Voting shows that this vote was implemented by a couple editors over the objections of just as many editors. Local consensus is, of course, not sufficient to override broader community consensus. But I don't even see a local consensus there, unless there's another discussion where you believe you've found consensus for a vote. The start of the RfC was intended to draw in outside participants, something that should have been done from the start. ~ Rob13Talk 20:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Rob, I was prepared to spend a half hour putting together the very effective counter, but decided not to. I think the events of the upcoming weeks will speak for themselves. You'll see thousands of words spent with few or no changes of mind, followed by a closer stating that they have no way to weigh arguments and are therefore counting !votes. ―Mandruss  00:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • My sock Bishzilla is generally not allowed in Wikipedia space, but should I perhaps make an exception and send her to devour this discussion? What do you think? Can we have an RfC on the matter? (An interminable one.) Please support or decline Bishzilla involvement below. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC).
  • Support Something needs to disassemble and disembowel the utterly frustrating force that this is. So, yes, I obviously support this. Chase (talk) 00:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Closure at ANI too soon.[edit]

Closing with no action. There is clearly consensus against reopening the ANI discussion. I see a lot of good advice here that I hope Jed Stuart will take into consideration. ~Awilley (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a request to review the close at ANI [4] I don’t question Bishonen’s interpretation of the consensus. The editors at Electronic harassment definitely want me banned from the article and more. However, I made it clear that I had limited time on the internet and wanted to give a reply in two days. [5] That was not to attempt to change the consensus but to counter the false narrative about my behaviour there. This false narrative and all that has led to it is entirely consistent with what is described in the essay ‘POV railroad’: [6] The closure happened 15 hours after my saying I wanted a right of reply. The result is that the record contains grossly inaccurate attacks on my credibility, involving false characterizations of my behavior. There are 8 accusations there that I think I can counter given the opportunity. If I am unable to counter that it will stay on the record there and could, and probably would, be used against me at a later date. All I want is the discussion re-opened and to counter all of that, one point at a time. I will debate it with them if they want. If not it is a part of a character assassination. I have requested Bishonen’s re-consideration of the closure, but he has refused: [7] I am regarding the TBAN as a separate matter at this point.Jed Stuart (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Point of order: The two are inseparable. Jed Stuart this will sound harsh- sorry- but the very reason for the early closure was the '"editor exhaustion" and time-wasting' you were seen to be responsible for. So unless you are appealing against the TBAN- which you say you're not- you are in effect requesting permission to exhaust editors' patience and waste their time, etc., for another two days. That, I suggest, would be a mistake. Quite a few editors in that discussion mentioned blocks (often, indef. ones): You realise that if the discussion is reopened- consensus could change- and start running along those lines...? FYI. In fact, let me take that a little further; I could see a situation where a block is proposed purely on the principle of you having re-opened the timesink. Muffled Pocketed 08:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support both Bishonen's close on AN/I and the TBAN, and I would also support an indefinite block for Jed Stuart for WP:NOTHERE. There was unanimous support for a TBAN plus several calls for an indefinite block in the AN/I-discussion when it was closed by Bishonen (after having been open for almost two days), so there's absolutely no valid reason for re-opening it. Jed Stuart was indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories after exhausting the patience of other editors by endless fringe-pushing, edit-warring and forum-shopping, and has refused to drop the stick even after the TBAN, posting several requests to lift the TBAN and/or re-opening the AN/I-discussion on Bishonen's talk page, refusing to take "no" for an answer. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The right of reply had been exercised in previous ANI threads. And there is no reason for us to wait unreasonably long for you to reply when there is no possible reply that could have changed the outcome of the discussion in your favor. Replying now doesn't make much difference either, since you aren't going to be here much longer. 2607:FB90:2E02:BF29:9839:2299:DFF8:1EF9 (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support close, Support TBAN AN/ANI does not exist to allow people to "set the record straight". The boards exist to address behavioral problems which come up editing Wikipedia in the best way for the encyclopedia. From what I have seen it is well past time for the OP to drop the matter and move on to other subjects. If they are concerned about the community holding things agaist them/ bringing up stuff later, my impression is that people are much more likely to form a bad impression of continuing to try to "set set the record straight" than from whatever was left "unanswered" in the first place. JbhTalk 12:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Advice for Jed Stuart: Wikipedia does not do justice or fairness. Allowing an opportunity for a reply might be an example of natural justice or procedural fairness, but Wikipedia doesn't do those either. At the present time, the Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia's final dispute resolution body) is proposing to close a case with adverse findings against editors who were not parties to the case, were not warned that their conduct was being reviewed, and were given no opportunity to address evidence against them. Some Arbitrators want to criticise the editor who brought the case to them, which they took, for bringing the case. My point is that ArbCom is generally (at least historically) much more inclined towards fairness than is ANI. You are seeking fairness in an environment that at times descends to levels which would never be acceptable in any face-to-face circumstances. If you want to have any chance of moving the view and ultimately having the ban changed, I suggest: (1) accept the ban and move on; (2) edit away from the area for a considerable period of time; (3) when you do appeal, focus on what you have done since the ban and simply note you felt it was unfair but decided the best for the encyclopaedia was to show that you can and do contribute productively. If you feel for your own sake that you must right a refutation of accusations and to describe how you have been mistreated, by all means, do so – OFF WIKI. Write it up, save it, and keep it to show when you appeal if anyone asks and you are willing to trust an editor who asks. Never post it on wiki. Don't base an appeal on fairness / natural justice unless you want to (a) lose; (b) be attacked for wasting time; (c) risk a block / community ban. Fair? No. Fact? Unfortunately, yes. EdChem (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2016 (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.

Can someone please take care of this...[edit]

Silly waste of time (in true AN/ANI style), talking to death something this simple and obvious, and the conversation spirals until someone says something they're going to get sanctioned for. I'm removing the section per clearly worded policy. StuRat has been given enough time to do so himself and has demurred. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2016 (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.

Per WP:POLEMIC, editors may not have on their user page... "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." In light of that, can someone please take care of this here. Thanks... --Jayron32 14:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I wouldnt describe your insufficiently lubricated jackscrew assembly a flaw... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Although if any admin is willing to start enforcing WP:POLEMIC I have a long list of blatant violations that I can dig up... Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
It is a trifle risqué isn't it. Would we view that as being an example of- as we advise- commenting on the edits rather than the editor? I mean, calling you crap would violate WP:NPA; but calling your edits crap, not? Muffled Pocketed 14:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
(EC) Even if it was, those sort of edit-tracking lists are almost always only tolerated when someone is preparing evidence for a noticeboard filing/arbcom case etc. Just listing people's (alleged) inappropriate editing to no fixed purpose is frowned upon. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'll give StuRat an opportunity to explain why it should stay. I don't see one but I'll listen to an explanation. Tiderolls 14:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The irony of this makes me think it's retaliatory -- either based on various criticisms or perhaps a reciprocal list? Anything to that? Otherwise, if this isn't deleted, you could always start a reciprocal list, but then, nobody wants it to take that long to load a userpage. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The reason for this list is that Jayron continually accuses me of the exact same behavior he commits, namely giving bad Ref Desk answers, where unreferenced, false, attacking the OP, swearing at a fellow editor, etc. I use this to refute his accusations, as I just did so today: [8].
  • Jayron does not like that I can so easily find many examples of his bad behavior, and wants this stricken from the record.
  • Jayron's own edits should not be seen as an attack on him.
  • Note that Jayron violated that POLEMIC rule in the very section I referenced above, and that I used that section of mine to prove that he was lying.
  • If Jayron's behavior continues to spiral out-of-control, I'd also like to use this list as evidence in a request to desysop him. StuRat (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • So, StuRat, you'll be hatting your talk page post with an apology as well? Tiderolls 15:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I will hat it, if you like, but I've done nothing that needs an apology. StuRat (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Done. StuRat (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hatting a list is not removal. It's still there. --Jayron32 15:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I never said I had removed it, did I ? StuRat (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Without wanting to get involved in the particulars here, I do get wanting to call out someone you see do something they criticize you for doing, but maintaining a public list about that person on your userpage is typically a bad idea (that's what this thread is about -- not the particular disputes which led to it). If you must save examples, it's probably better to do off-wiki. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (EC)I think you should delete it, StuRat, but I'll settle for collapsing the thread. Others may have a different opinion. I'll choose to disagree with you on the apology; you're the one that has to live with it, though. Make it light on yourself. Tiderolls 15:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • See my comment above. This sort of negative edit-tracking (as it clearly shows in polemic) is only permitted on a temporary basis. As StuRat has indicated he is keeping it for future 'Gotcha' purposes, it needs to be deleted. Nothing preventing him from keeping a .txt file on his desktop if he really needs to keep a record. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If there is a consensus to delete it, I will do so, but I already have a safe copy, suspecting that Jayron might delete it on his own and hide it too. Note that my !vote is to keep it, and should be counted every bit as much as Jayron's !vote to delete it. I know the tendency on the Admin board is to ignore the !votes of non-Admins, but I don't believe policy allows that. StuRat (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Yes, I agree with OiD here. Note also that we've literally in the last couple of days had an extremely vocal MFD establishing that we don't tolerate people using Wikipedia to host their personal shit-lists of instances where other people have done something they consider incorrect, and that case was less problematic than this as it wasn't targeting a specific individual. StuRat, please remove this completely; if Jayron decides (s)he wants to play hardball here, people have been indefblocked for a lot less than this. ‑ Iridescent 15:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hey now, I've never said anything about that. Please don't go putting words in my mouth. It isn't helpful. --Jayron32 15:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • They are not putting words into your mouth. Iridescent is advising StuRat of the potential consequences based on precedent if you should choose to make a more 'formal' and less polite request for its removal. Given that policy and convention is on your side in this (not to mention the assumption of bad faith below) I think thats a reasonable warning. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not an "assumption" of bad faith, Jayron has proven his bad faith, when he lied with the statement that I "never ever providing a useful reference to anyone ever". A statement easily disproven, which I did at the link provided above, and can in many more examples. StuRat (talk) 15:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • One other comment, Jayron's dual "apology" on the Ref Desk was virtually concurrent with this request, and quite uncharacteristic for him. I believe the only reason he apologized there is that his demonstratably false claims about me there would have been viewed unfavorably here. StuRat (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
    [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. I always own my errors of judgement and poor behavior, and I always apologize for it. I will not rescind my apology to you, I meant it. I acted poorly, and you did not deserve the rudeness I heaped upon you. My behavior there was inexcusable. I do not offer an apology for any reason than it is the right thing to do because I acted badly. --Jayron32 16:32, 23 September 2016 (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.

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svgHello, Administrators' noticeboard. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikiwork factors for WikiProjects[edit]

Hello all, apologies if this is not the correct place to initiate this discussion. Theo's Little Bot, which updated the wikiwork parameters for the assessment of all WikiProjects, has not been doing to since July 2015, resulting in the incorrect Wikiwork numbers for all projects. The bot is running I can see still, so is there any way to make the bot run on the Wikiwork page also? I had emailed the bot owner but did not get any response. —IB [ Poke ] 11:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Well, just an FYI, there is WP:BOWN- but it doesn't seem particularly busy! Muffled Pocketed 11:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah so was wondering if anyone has any idea how to proceed with this? I saw that the BOWN no one actively checks or responds like this page. —IB [ Poke ] 11:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The botop, Theo, is the only person that can restart the task. If he is unable or unwilling to do so, you will need to find someone else to take over the task. — JJMC89(T·C) 22:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Image in use, author requests deletion under G7[edit]

A good number of images have been nominated for deletion under WP:G7 and are unattended for some time now. Those non-free files are being used in different articles. Should these files be deleted under G7? I am a bit confused. --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

They are lacking copyright tags and fair use rationales, so they'll need to be deleted anyway. If someone feels like adding proper tagging, they can do so - or reupload them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
They had fair use rationales. The uploader blanked them when requesting deletion. As a matter of general principle, if an image is being used in an article that several people have contributed to, it seems like it should go through WP:FFD rather than be eligible for CSD. That said, these appear to all be mugshots of living people. As they included fair use rationales I presume they're not in the public domain and thus would need to be treated like any other image of a living person -- which is to say, that they don't typically qualify for fair use on Wikipedia. Might be a good idea to decline and send them all to FfD. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:AIV & WP:RFPP[edit]

FYI – the backlogs for these two noticeboards appear to be very large at the time that I am writing this... Maybe a couple of admins can come help clean up the mess...? There are currently 30+ page protection requests at WP:RFPP now... (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Candidates for speedy deletion backlog[edit]

Hi. There's currently a backlog in the speedy deletion category of approx 150+ items. Be grateful if someone could address this. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Modification of block; reminder about unblock appeal channels[edit]

Following an appeal to the arbitration committee, TeeTylerToe's block (originating in this ANI thread) is modified to restore talk page access and permit appeals through normal community channels including UTRS and the {{unblock}} template. He is strongly advised to carefully consider the concerns that have been raised about his editing before attempting to appeal. This does not prohibit decline of appeals by any community mechanism or withdrawal of talk page access should problems arise.

The committee emphasizes that block appeals are an important component of community dispute resolution processes and should not be withdrawn without compelling evidence that appeal channels are likely to be abused.

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Modification of block; reminder about unblock appeal channels

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 22:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Admin attention → AIV, again[edit]

AIV has a huge backlog again, with some reports going almost 7 hours without action. This is becoming a serious and regular issue...could we get some extra eyes over there, please? Thanks. WikiPuppies bark dig 01:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A lot of these entries are either not clearly vandalism, or are supported only by really cryptic messages. Am I supposed to know who the "nazi ref desk troll" is? Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC).
@Lankiveil: LTA case. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Soft_skin. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@EvergreenFir: Thanks for that. I did look on WP:LTA, but it looks like that report isn't in the master list there. I think my point stands; if that report had been linked in the AIV report I would have been comfortable acting quickly and blocking right away. If folks want quick action in their AIV reports, it helps to include more information. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:21, 26 September 2016 (UTC).

Teacher editor[edit]

Hi, Apologies if this is in the wrong place however I'm lost as to where to ask this,
I've come across an editor (Mrcurtis) who wants to teach his Year 8/9 pupils on how to edit the article Woodham Ley Primary School, The editor had reverted the school redirect with the edit summary "Set up for our students to edit, please leave",
I've given some advice[16] however I'm utterly clueless when it comes to the whole student editing thing and as I don't want to give any incorrect advice I figured I'd ask here and hopefully an admin could kindly intervene,
Thanks and again my apologies if this is the wrong place, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Started a conversation there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus - It's extremely appreciated, –Davey2010Talk 15:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump and Neo-Nazism[edit]

The article (not the author) may need some immediate attention. I have nominated it for deletion (AfD) per WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but WP:BLP may also require immediate deletion. It's basically a political screed with questionable sourcing. Kleuske (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Questionable sourcing? 903 sources for an article that's a few sections long, many of those op-ed pieces it appears. I don't think I've seen an article where the sources took up more data than the article itself. I'll comment on the AfD about this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Looks like the page was deleted per G5. I thought that type of hyperbole looked familiar too. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
It was yet another contribution by serial socker User:Kingshowman and speedied as such. Favonian (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. As a clarification, the "questionable" did not refer to the amount of sources, but the quality thereof (with respect to the subject at hand). Kleuske (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Oh I agree, just the sheer number threw me for a loop (and most of them op-eds). RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Page tagged for Speedy Deletion[edit]

I marked Geeksters for speedy deletion for not citing sources. But I think it also spams links to external websites. Thanks! Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This looks like it may be an inadvertent case of WP:BITE and tag bombing an article only just created. I have doubts that it meets the criteria for CSD though it's too early to be sure. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Well I think that it's poorly sourced if at all. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. And while I wish it were otherwise a complete lack of citations is not in itself grounds for deletion. That said the article has more issues than Time magazine and I wouldn't care to put money on its long term survival prospects. I have tagged it and removed the improper external links. I will give the editor (who is certainly a COI) a day or two to demonstrate WP:N. If they fail, I will send it to AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
P.S. If you haven't already discovered it, WP:TWINKLE is a fantastic tool. It will instantly format most of the common tags we use around here including CSD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Gary "Roach" Sanderson: Since you are nominating other editors' articles for deletion you may be interested in discussion going on in Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Permission error trying to create a redirect[edit]

I would like to create a redirect to Affordable_housing_in_Canada#British_Columbia named Affordable housing in British Columbia but get a Permission error: The page title or edit you have tried to create has been restricted to administrators at this time. It matches an entry on the local or global blacklists, which is usually used to prevent vandalism. and advising me to post here. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)please ping me

There's an entry on the meta:Title blacklist for .*affordable.*, I guess because of spammers. I've created the redirect. –xenotalk 20:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on 2016 CUOS candidates![edit]

The Arbitration Committee invites comments from the community on this year's candidates for the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The community consultation phase of the 2016 appointment round will run from 26 September to 8 October. Questions for the candidates may be asked at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2016 CUOS appointments. Comments may be posted there or emailed privately to the arbitration committee at Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Malformed AFD[edit]

Could someone straighten out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward J. Zajac.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done — JJMC89(T·C) 06:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Small AIV backlog[edit]

Few reports have been sitting for 4 hours now. If anyone has some spare time, could use some attention. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


This noticeboard has quite the backlog as of right now... If an admin or two has some time on their hands, this noticeboard could use some attention... (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Request to delete contributions made by the user Ottoniel Blanco and sockpuppet.[edit]

A mass deletion of revisions made by blocked sockpuppets is not required. Individual edits severely violating WP:BLP or containing gross incivility may sometimes be hidden from the edit history but after checking the two articles I don't see how this is needed for Jeremy Shada or Isabella Acres. The accounts are blocked and revision deletion cannot prevent new sockpuppets from returning to Wikipedia anyway. De728631 (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have to write the user Ottoniel Blanco has been blocked by administrators and made a group of sockpuppets as Elblanco123, WhiteCollar125 including Elnecio247 which they were detected by via checkusers and they remind him that he had created, vandalize, upload images to articles after years of further editing. So you have to remove the contributions made by the users not to return to vandalize. See contributions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and those are all delete please. (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

  • No one is going to go back through years of edits to revert some old blocked socks' edits. Unless there are specific BLP or copyright issues at play, it would be a colossal waste of time and is not the intention of WP:BANREVERT.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
But Elblanco123 and Elnecio247 that they were not vandalized to items like Jeremy Shada and Isabella Acres which they changed the content and are not part of a group of sockpuppets but they realized that had several conflicts, which they tried to upload some photos that have faults copyrights these 2 important items and they did not know the reason because they are blocked by violating the rules and also the policy of Wikipedia. (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2016 (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.

Closing of unblock request on WP:ANI[edit]

Unblock request closed as denied and upgrade to indefinite. Blackmane (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2016 (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.

Could we please have an uninvolved admin close this unblock request? It has been open for well over two days, noone has commented in the thread for well over a day, and not a single one of the several people who have commented supports an unblock. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:35, 29 September 2016 (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.

Almost a one year backlog[edit]

Our backlog at: Template:Request_edit/Instructions#Current_requested_edits

Is now a few days short of a year.

I count myself as an editor who has worked on many requests, but find them tedious, and find it difficult to get motivated to work on them.

As a community, we have instruction people with a COI to use this process, them we ignore those who follow the rules.

Any thoughts on how we respond?

(Technically, not an admin only issue, but as admins, we ought to discuss how to solve the problem.)

Coincidentally, I'm trying to work on a months long backlog at OTRS, and ran across a request made in June about a requested edit. I'm not sure which is more embarrassing, that we taken from June until September to respond to their query about why nothing is being done, or my explanation that the backlog is almost a year so they should just wait their turn.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Well I've got rid of 3 so I suppose every little helps, I have to agree tho it's bad for everyone (myself wholly included) to tell those to use the edit request option and then no one actually answers them at all... –Davey2010Talk 01:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree these are not protected, this is not an admin problem; notice we are very good at keeping the protected edit request queues down! — xaosflux Talk 01:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the advice shouldn't say "if no one objects to your edit after x days, make it yourself". I'm notifying the Teahouse about the requested edit backlog, since some of them will probably want to help. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 03:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I have worked on this backlog extensively and have probably answered over 200+ requests during the last year. It's good to see that this has finally raised the attention of other editors, because it's very discouraging being one of very few people trawling through these edit requests, and watching the backlog grow higher despite attempts to bring it down. From my experience, I believe the "make it yourself after X days" advice would be a bad idea. A significant portion of the COI editors (usually the professionals hired by firms that are experienced with Wikipedia, such as Beutler Ink) refuse to touch article pages entirely for fear they will be accused of breaching COI guidelines. They won't edit in mainspace even if somebody gives them the go-ahead. Of all the requests, about 60% of them have issues, whether it be blatant promotionalism, close paraphrasing/wholesale copyright infringements, or balance issues. Please spread the word and any additional help in clearing this backlog is greatly appreciated. Altamel (talk) 05:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I've done these in the past and stopped doing them because what Altamel summarizes is true. It's difficult to stay motivated when so often the necessary response is a decline, followed by some mix of explaining we don't add promotional content, don't add copyright violations, don't add original research, need you to identify what reliable sources verify the content, etc.

But I certainly agree it's very unfortunate that we set them on this path and when they comply it takes forever for a response, yay or nay—and these are the good eggs, at least in comparison to the absolutely huge problem we have with that same mix of problematic edits being made directly, ignoring the fangless suggestions of the COI guidelines to only edit the talk page. (Not the right forum but the fact they are fangless suggestions is the ultimate problem--just a nudge on that topic: the only real teeth we have was created when the Terms of Use were changed to require mandatory disclosure for financially compensated editing, but very few are making use of {{uw-paid1}} through {{uw-paid4}}, which I created in the hope of providing a path to enforce the TOU change.) Anyway, I'll go tackle some now. Thanks for bringing this up Sphilbrick.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

While I've not done these before, never hurts to give it a go. I've got a few things to do today but will study how to go about clearing a few a little later in the afternoon. Blackmane (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
The instructions for this process neither explained to edit requesters the need for good sourcing in any detail nor how to place citations, nor provided any explanation of the dos and don'ts of copyright to avoid infringement (I do a lot of copyright work and you'd be amazed at the number of infringers who did not have an inkling they were doing anything improper and would not have done so had they known). I have added both to the instructions, in the hope that we will have less copyvios to deal with through this process, and more attempts at placing good sourcing, and thereby lessen the number of necessary declines.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I'd started working on them and cleared a couple, but have come down with a cold which has taken a bit off my edge. Will plug away at a few more when my head isn't full of cobwebs. Blackmane (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

A heated debate[edit]

Could an admin close this discussion here: Talk:United States presidential election, 2016#Infobox inclusion, again? It has been the cause of numerous reverting going on at the article which is under WP:1RR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Note that that talk page has been subjected to revisions to old comments (maybe vandalism). I tried to restore my own comments, but others may not reflect what was actually discussed. Also, this has already been reported here. Sparkie82 (tc) 17:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection & ArbCom sanctions[edit]

CambridgeBayWeather and I have been discussing the role of extended confirmed protection as it relates to the enforcement of WP:ARBPIA3#500/30, and it appears we have different views of what the rule is. I'm honestly not sure which one of us is right, so I'm hoping someone here can help clarify. The way I understood it, all IP editors and editors under 500/30 are banned from editing pages related to the conflict. That means that edits by such users should be reverted on sight, and all pages related to the topic should be given Extended Confirmed Protection (since edits by non-permitted users would be reverted anyway). CambridgeBayWeather understands the general guideline—that extended confirmed protection should only be used if semi-protection doesn't work—to apply to all cases, including ones covered by the ArbCom ruling (feel free to clarify if I've misstated your view). That means that extended confirmed protection would only be added to any page, including pages covered by the ArbCom ruling, if semi-protection wasn't enough.

For some context, this came up in the context of the article B'Tselem, which had a recent revert under the sanctions. There hasn't been much vandalism or edit warring on the page, so under normal circumstances, extended confirmed protection would definitely be inappropriate. What I'm trying to understand is whether we should nonetheless add the additional protection level to the page, as it is covered by the ArbCom ruling. agtx 22:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

See also User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#B'Tselem. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The way I read it is the way Agtx reads it: If the editor is not extended confirmed, they may not edit a page related to ARBPIA or GamerGate or the other articles listed here. The guideline enacted by WP:ECP2016 is for uses other than those authorized by ArbCom.
Most of the ARBPIA pages are now bluelocked preemptively. The question we're running into now at RFPP is whether or not a particular page can be reasonably construed to fall under arbitration enforcement. Katietalk 23:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm also reading it how Agtx is reading it - for pages in the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict, non-extendedconfirmed editors are prohibited from editing, and the pages should be bluelocked. There might be a valid IAR argument for leaving it at semi, but it would be thin. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
OK but I still don't think that pre-emptive protection is a good idea. It seems to me to be a slippery slope. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by the slippery slope in this context, and you haven't really explained your position other than to say that you don't think that WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 applies (a view nobody else has taken). I'm trying to engage with you here, but I'm having trouble getting you to say more than that you don't think it's a "good idea" (which you've now said twice, without elaboration). I'm starting to feel as though you are not interested in this discussion, which is fine. Do you object to my requesting that another administrator bluelock the page? agtx 16:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea either. I disagree with the policy as I read it, and hope that it will be applied with common sense and ignored when appropriate until it is amended. Whether to ignore the policy in this particular case is an open question which I have no opinion on at the moment. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Extended confirmed protection can be applied on sight to any Arab-Israeli conflict related page regardless of any other forms of protection which may or may not have been applied to that page. The requirement for semi protection to have proven ineffective is only for pages protected by an admin outside the Arab-Israeli conflict. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    There is a difference between "can be applied on sight" and "should be applied on sight". Only a tiny proportion of related pages are ECP'd. Frankly the Arbcom resolution is not coherent. Relevant discussion at WT:RFPP. -- zzuuzz (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    My personal opinion lines up with Airplaneman, that it should be applied "liberally (but not automatically)" generally, for me, that means if there's an issue ECP should be applied over other forms of enforcement. However, I don't know how the rest of the Committee feels about it. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with this and have been following that credo at RFPP. --NeilN talk to me 16:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    Speaking personally also, I agree with Callanecc and NeilN. Doug Weller talk 16:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Basically, to misquote King, "not necessarily ECP but ECP if necessary" is the way I see it. "OK" in my reply means that I could be mistaken. "Slippery slope" in that once you start pre-emptively protecting pages then it becomes easier and easier to do. It's not that I'm not interested in the discussion it's just that I don't have a lot to say. And yes anybody can apply ECP to that page. There is no need to ask me. From reading this and the discussion linked by zzuuzz, I had read that before and it may be that is what I was thinking of, it would appear that some editors agree with me. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I seem to be out of my league[edit]

Well, that's all sorted then. Blackmane (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2016 (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 tried to do something that it seems only you can do. So . . .. There was a category, created by me. called Category:Carved by the Piccirilli Brothers. It was up for deletion, and then at that discussion in the opposed nominations section here,, (not sure how to do a link) it was more or less decided to rename the category Category:Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers. When I attempted to do a "MOVE" I got a message to come and post here, so here I am. What's next? Carptrash (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Category pages should generally not be moved because that would still leave the articles that were in the old category with outdated links. The proper procedure is to re-categorise the content of the old category into the new one. This is done by replacing the category links at the bottom of each affected article with the new category name. I have now created the page Category:Sculptures carved by the Piccirilli Brothers so you can start changing the category links inside the articles that are still in Category:Carved by the Piccirilli Brothers. When that is done, we may consider deleting the old category page. De728631 (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that's more or less what I figured. I will go about changing the articles in that soon to be defunct category right now. Carptrash (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, all the changes made, the Category:Carved by the Piccirilli Brothers is now empty and I think my part in this play is done. Exit stage left. Carptrash (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. After consulting the instructions I remembered that category pages can and should in fact be moved by administrators so I'm now going to merge the histories of the two pages. De728631 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2016 (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.

Unnecessary "round robin" moves.[edit]

  • I believe that a "round-robin" move is swopping the places/names of pages of A and B by moving A to C, then B to A, then C to B . OK so far. But today I was called on to make 2 obstructed moves, where of pages A and B, B redirected to A before; and someone had already done the moves, by round-robin instead of by one plain move, thus creating several useless junk redirect edits. (When I must make a "round-robin" move as described hereinabove, I always leave no redirects in the 3 component page-moves.) I feel that there needs to be advice that, to move A to B, where B has no history except a redirect pointing to A, use one plain move leaving a redirect. (Presence of old deleted or undeleted history sitting under A or B or C may change matters, and watch for what happens to their talk pages and any other dependent pages.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Which moves are you referring to? (I can't immediately find the moves you refer to in the history of WP:RMT.) FYI, if B redirects to A, it's preferable to do 2 moves on B rather than the article A to keep the revision history on the article cleaner. Agreed that editors moving pages should first attempt to perform a direct move if possible. Page movers should be reasonably familiar with unchecking "Leave a redirect behind" at every step of WP:PMVR#rr. I personally think a user talk message about unnecessary round-robin along with a pointer to the procedure would suffice. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 18:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Requesting Admin advice re moving a page over another one[edit]

Page has been updated. Nothing more to do here Tazerdadog (talk) 06:48, 1 October 2016 (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.

CorporateM is a writer paid to edit Wikipedia content. I am familiar with his work, and he left me a talk page Request regarding a stalled draft he has written to update/replace the BLP Barry O'Callaghan. The current article was written by an IP six years ago, with subsequent edits by a number of editors. According to