Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive302

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Proxy server?[edit]

Blocked as an open proxy by Ponyo (non-admin closure) EvergreenFir (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:103.85.241.58 appears to be a proxy server.[1] what is the best place to report such a thing? Would AIAV be appropriate? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Post a request on WP:OP. Lorstaking (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I've blocked it as an open proxy.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:34, 30 August 2018 (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.

Confirmed user request[edit]

NCWP appears to be doing a fine job reverting vandalism; would someone consider confirming their account early so their edits will stop triggering filter 1? Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jauerback: Not really a huge deal but I notice you didn’t set an expiry, they will be autoconfirmed in the next 24 hours or so. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
But Beeblebrox, why does it matter? I figured that the ability to time-limit rights was for testing ("will this person abuse the right? This way it will go away by itself, and nobody will complain that I removed it") or for someone who needs a right for only a short period of time. And it's not as if we have a limit on the number of manually confirmed users. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not a big deal - there are a couple of odd edge cases related to the edit filter, but not a big deal - someone will usually "clean up" these periodically as well. — xaosflux Talk 04:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I would file that under “only needs the right for a short time” but again, not a big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll be honest, it never occurred to me to set an expiry time. I guess that shows how often I've changed rights. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:19, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

New js/css admin restrictions are now in force[edit]

Hello Admins, new protections for javascript and css pages have been enabled. See Wikipedia:Interface administrators and its talk page for the progress on this change here. If you need a page updated, the edit-request process is the best way to get your requested edit completed. The same goes for if you need one of these pages speedy deleted. Please feel free to join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators for more information. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 11:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

viewdelete and jss/css[edit]

What I'm assuming is a bug regarding access to viewing deleted versions of js/css pages appears to be going on. See phab:T202989 for status updates. — xaosflux Talk 13:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This is being discussed with the dev team to determine if it should be restored, if you would like to comment please do so on the phab ticket. — xaosflux Talk 14:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Delete userjs/usercss pages coming back[edit]

A change (phab:T200176 to restore your ability to delete (but not undelete) these pages is scheduled to be back this week. If you need any of these pages speedy deleted in the meantime, feel free to leave an edit request on their associated talk pages. — xaosflux Talk 13:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

This access should be working again, please let me know if you are having any issues with deleting other user's js/css pages now. — xaosflux Talk 11:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

CSD is backed up[edit]

I've cleared some of it, but we still have upwards of 150 pages that need attention and I have to step out for a few hours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I've got Gs 12 and 13. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I will take care of the categories if there are any left.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks like they were mostly G13s. Back down to 20ish. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks everybody! -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Too fast for my understanding[edit]

Can this be done manually? I blocked the editor because the edits are crap, but now I'm wondering if there's more going on. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies: I know what you mean, but I think it's still homsap; the highest rate is wat four, five edits a minute? I think that's perfectly doable. And incidentally, it would be possible to do about (*guess*) thirty, forty—by the means of having loooooads of tabs open, making the edit, and then just saving them one after the other. Which is a bit of a palava, but. Anyway, you get my drift. Morning! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 04:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmm I suppose that's true... Drmies (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
It looks machine-authored. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
If the machine's 12-years old :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Jeremy Corbyn[edit]

As an uninvolved administrator who knows nothing about nor has ever edited articles related to the politics of the United Kingdom, I have placed this article under indefinite 1RR. Oddly enough, there is already a 1RR edit notice on the page that people seem to have been ignoring. It was expired because the previous sanction was set for 6 months and expired in 2016, so there weren't technical violations. Going forward, breaches in 1RR will be discretionary sanctions violations on this article. If edit warring continues after 1RR and blocks are not effective, any administrator may apply full protection. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2018 (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.

There has been a request for administrative assistance on this article on the talk page, though I'm at a loss to suggest exactly what to do. Obviously the antisemitism section has got a bit out of hand and people are arguing about how much due weight there should be. The most immediate thing I can think of is a 1RR restriction on the article; I don't think handing out blocks would be at all beneficial at this stage.

For the record, although I have supported Corbyn in the past, it's been more from a "not Theresa May" viewpoint, and I don't have a strong opinion on him anymore and think some of the recent criticism is justified. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Just apply "pending changes". Which is both apt and massively ironic. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The page is already semi-protected, which means pending changes would not help.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Well that blows my best joke (of today). Thanks though. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
My dog's got no nose. How does it smell? Terrible!

Anyway, does anyone else support putting the article under 1RR? Edit summaries like this are hardly conductive to resolving the dispute. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest indef blocking them all, or at the very least, cherry-picking the best personal attacks and protecting them. Richie, you're an admin, and one of the few who does a decent job here, just do what you think's best. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Individual article sections can't be put under 1RR, can they? Until quite recently it was clear which was the culprit hotbed of editorial unrest. But now it seems to have spilled out a little. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
No opinion on "should" or "should not", but if it's appropriate, why not? You can't possibly enforce 1RR, or 3RR, or anything else like that with technical means only, so we have to have social decisions on what you may or may not do, and those decisions get enforced by a human using technical means. We already impose per-page bans on people, and topic bans that affect individual sections (go to WP:TBAN and look for the word "California"), and 1RR bans on entire pages; I can't see why a 1RR restriction on a section would be a bad idea, if that specific section (and only that section) is having problems that could easily be resolved with a reversion restriction. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
1RR might not be a bad idea, but on what basis would you impose it? Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles did not provide us with a possibility to impose discretionary sanctions in this area. Or was there a earlier decision somewhere about BLP?--Ymblanter (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I was kind of hoping about 20 people would come here, say "support 1RR", then it would be under community consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: The page already shows a 1RR notice when you edit it - I was assuming it was under 1RR, though looking at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log - it seems the 1RR restriction was supposed to expire in 2016. Parts of the page are under WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction anyway, and WP:BLP obviously applies - all you've got to do is properly log the 1RR page restriction. I wouldn't section limit this - too complicated - as the content has been bouncing around between sections and could wind up in, say, the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with what Icewhiz says here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC) ... although I'm pretty involved, so you might want to totally disregard my comment.
  • I think this is what Icewhiz meant, but Ritchie333, under WP:NEWBLPBAN you could unilaterally impose 1RR on the article if uninvolved. For the record, I would support a 1RR restriction: I don't know how much good it will do because I suspect liberal use will be made of the BLP exception, but I can't see it doing harm. Vanamonde (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Endorse 1RR, and if there is liberal misuse of the BLP exception, full protection. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:11, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm definitely an involved user here, but I would say that full protection would probably be a good idea. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2018 (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.

New Page Patrol – Help wanted[edit]

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
  • We managed to reduce the New Page Patrol backlog down to nearly nothing by the end of June, but New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with with the influx of new articles over the summer and is back up to several thousand unreviewed articles and almost double that number of unreviewed redirects. We could use a few extra hands on deck. We are currently falling behind by about 50 articles per day.
  • Administrators are the largest pool of editors with the user rights needed to review new articles, but currently only a handful are active New Page Reviewers. I know that there are a lot of tasks that only administrators can do, but if you enjoy this sort of work, and have some time to help out, please do.
  • If you aren't an admin, and would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Unable to create userpage[edit]

Username blocked by Drmies, nothing else to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2018 (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 receiving an error when creating my userpage. It says "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". Can you please help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I expect that it doesn't matter, since someone who wants to use a Swastika as their user name is gonna get blocked or force-renamed momentarily.--Jorm (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Jorm, what am I not seeing? I see a rectangle. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Drmies: You do not have the Helvetica Neue font installed, I'm guessing, or are using as skin that forces an antique font on you. A rectangle means that the display font doesn't contain the unicode glyph. It's a swastika.--Jorm (talk) 00:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm you lost me at the word "skin", but thanks--I applied a soft user block, in Times New Roman, which you and I have on our arms, haha. Thanks Jorm. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I happened to be looking at the username policy, specifically WP:NONLATIN. Call me old-fashioned, but I like the Latin to be mandated. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Me too. I think user names got opened up to non-Latin when unified log-in was instituted. I assume it's WMF-mandated, and there's nothing we can do about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if it offends you. I am a Raelian and we use the swastika to represent infinite time. Please don't let the nazi's corrupt one of our symbols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that BS doesn't work. I'm sorry if a soft username block offends you; you are welcome to adopt User:Raelian Swastika Thing or something like that, and while that takes place I encourage you take up semiotics and the idea of polysemy. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Might I suggest that the usernames InfiniteTime or Infinite Time are still available to you. The swastika as a username is not, not because of what it means to you, but what it represents to most people (most Wikipedians included). General Ization Talk 00:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I believe that about as far as I can throw a cheesecake underwater.--Jorm (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Did you just coin that? Why would you be throwing a cheesecake underwater? Natureium (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Now I'm curious, how far CAN you throw a cheesecake underwater? PackMecEng (talk) 00:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

A question: if we take him at his word that he's a new user and a Raelian, will he be able to create his user-talk page to appeal or request a username change? power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Their only edits were to this page, which in and of itself is suspicious, so I say they just drop the account and move on.--Jorm (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Drmies created the talk page when blocking. Natureium (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
D'oh! I got a red-link clicking on the username and got confused. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Here's some background on the Raëlian effort to rehabilitate the swastika. It may go without saying to those of us who have a reasonable understanding of Wikipedia's purposes, but sometimes we need to explain to new editors that Wikipedia does not exist to right great wrongs. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:36, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It's plenty fair to say "no swastika emoji in usernames" - the potential for harm and offense should be obvious to anyone. Someone calling themselves, in plain language, "Raëlian Swastika", I have no problem with. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Nazis, were neither the first, nor the most notable nor the most wide users of Swastika#Historical_use. The Nazi Hakenkreuz is just one version of the list in Swastika#Appearance I am responding here as I am from one of the cultures who (have absolutely nothing to do with Nazis and yet) widely regard this as a symbol of Goodness and prosperity. People have it at homes, rooms, books basically everywhere (even on the head). And even though they know About the Nazis yet nobody in my culture gives a rat's ass that Nazis also used a version of this symbol. There are a lot of users who use it on their userpages, due to its auspicious nature. Also as one of the Supreme Court judges in India while deciding on a case related to an allegedly "offensive to some" movie quoted, "One can always find someone who is offended by something"
Now coming to the actual topic, why do you think a Swastika emoji be banned ? What next, are we going on a (Gestapo like) hunt to remove the symbols from userpages ? Lets be practical here. A vandal who is using it for offending others would soon be blocked for his actions rather than his emoji. which sounds reasonable. Just adding my 2 cents. --DBigXray 13:34, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As a procedural note (mainly as a reply to the thread directly above this one), the user in question was blocked because of WP:NOEMOJI (i.e. a UPOL violation), not necessarily because said emoji is a swastika. Plenty of other name options have been suggested above. Primefac (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Primefac has removed my tag, but I will post my comment anywayPrimefac, thanks for quoting WP:NOEMOJI. The policy sounds reasonable to me and I support it. I hope it is applied to all emojis and not just to Swastika. The discussion above bothered me and my comment above was a direct response to Ivan's comment on "Swastika emoji" had Ivan mentioned "No Emoji" I would not have even bothered to comment here. cheers --DBigXray 14:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) When I was living in China my wife got me a Buddhist prayer bead set that had a white jade swastika pendant. It's the chunky Buddhist kind, not the awful white supremacist kind. As somebody with a pretty deep grounding in Buddhist thought (though I am an atheist, my father is a Soto Zen Buddhist and I studied Buddhism in some considerable depth) I entirely understand how this particular representation varies from the version the Nazis used, including the process that led to the adoption of the modified symbol by the Nazis in the first place. It was a very sweet gift which I keep to this day as one of the very first presents she ever gave me, which means it has some significant emotional resonance for me. I still don't bring it out at parties, because even though I might know it's distance from the white supremacist symbol, other people can reasonably be expected not to know and I would not want to inadvertently upset somebody with something that might be construed as a hate symbol. So while I understand the perspective of Raelians, no, we don't need swastikas on Wikipedia. It would make a hostile environment. Simonm223 (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Well the Nazis and the Fascists were also offended by a lot of things and they effectively acted on it and censored "things" and "people" they found offensive. I hope people learn from it and stop imposing their own lack of tolerance onto others. Not that I am encouraging people to use Swastika, just trying to discourage Our respected admins who (atleast appear to me) to be on a "search and destroy mission" against Swastika. cheers. --DBigXray 14:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
You know, there are battles to fight and there are ones to walk away from. I'd suggest that an attempt to rehabilitate an old solar symbol that got thoroughly tainted by the fash in the first half of the twentieth century is one of the latter. Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Let me clarify again if I failed in my last attempt, I am not here to argue on any case of "rehabilitation of Swastika". No, I am really not interested. My only concern here on this AN thread, is against admins implementing an "Unwritten Rule" of issuing blocks based on a symbol that "they" find offensive. As Primefac pointed WP:NOEMOJI policy so I feel it is clearly a good block but the justification is different than what was being discussed here earlier .--DBigXray 15:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Maybe the time to rehabilitate the Swastika will come someday, but not yet. This being the English Wikipedia, we need to be sensitive to what the Swastika means to English speakers, for good or bad. On the Hindi Wikipedia, feel free to do what you please. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
It isn't an emoji, it appears to be a character from Tibetan (Unicode block). Peter James (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
You are correct, but it still falls under NOEMOJI (though I suppose I could have used the shortcut SCRIPTPLEASE). Primefac (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah it is not an emoji but falls under WP:NOEMOJI "Usernames that use any non-language symbols. This includes:" specifically "Symbols and characters that are the block lists at Unicode symbols". We list it on the unicode symbols page under Religious and political symbols in Unicode if I am not mistaken. PackMecEng (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I just feel the need to warn everyone that I am on a one-man crusade to rehabilitate the word "Belgium," so please don't ban me if I put it in a new user name. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Immediate ban for DumBelgiumuzid Simonm223 (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
User:DBigXray, in between a few dog whistles I heard you loud and clear, with your supposition of 'an "Unwritten Rule" of issuing blocks based on a symbol that "they" find offensive'. Those scare quotes around "they" are clear: admins with an agenda, some "liberal" agenda I suppose. Well, I blocked also because unspeakable horrors were committed by a bunch of brutes who waved that swastika around, so even without the technicality of the character-user name, I would block for this: not just because I find it offensive, but more importantly because we should not be waving that kind of symbol around. There are victims of Nazism still, and they are likely to find the symbol offensive when it is used by someone as a username. (This does not apply to the word, obviously.) I suppose you also missed the link to polysemy. And if you ever get to be an admin you'll find that in some cases one can place a block for a number of different reasons, each with their own rationale.

Now, we are not going to restart this discussion here, since it's closed: I am using, or liberally abusing, my administrative privilege, and a certain prerogative as the blocking administrator who has a right to defend their actions, in order to NOT let these...odd statements of yours stand unchallenged here. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2018 (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.

Site Ban Proposal: Michael Hardy[edit]

I'm going to be bold and close this as unproductive argument (of which there seems to be a lot going around at the moment, even by our usual standards). I'm not going to try to tell anyone not to open it again, but I'll just plead pathetically - there's a big encyclopedia out there with millions of holes still to fill, so please let's all drop this now, eh? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2018 (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 isn't going to go anywhere. You all know where ArbCom is, if that is necessary. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2018 (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.

Michael Hardy has just started making personal attacks again right after his block expired for personal attacks. [2] Two years ago the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy was opened and found that Michael Hardy made uncivil comments in the past. He has also failed to drop the wp:stick over the current incident. Here is a edit him attacking other users [3] during his blocked. I personally believe admins should lead by example and be held to a higher standard than regular users. With Michael Hardy's past and current behavior, I propose a site ban. With the condition that he can get unbanned if he resigns the mop. Afootpluto (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose the community does not have the authority to desysop, and this is just an end run to attempt that. This would lead to an inevitable case anyway on appeal, and would waste even more community time. If people want him desysoped, they should go through the normal procedure, not create some new method that would not achieve consensus if put to a community RfC rather than just a thread at AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I decided to strike that provision from my proposal. I personally think MH should be CBAN even if they aren't desysop. Afootpluto (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose- WP:RFAR is that way. Nihlus 22:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not satisfied with how ArbCom handled this last time. If people don't like the resignation proviso, just drop that portion and make it an outright ban. It may not be fair, but nobody can say that MH wasn't given numerous chances to adjust his behavior. Lepricavark (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If you want him desysoped, this is not an end round for that. If you want to argue that he is a net negative to the project, I don't see a convincing argument for that spelled out. GMGtalk 22:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - being in contempt of the drama-boards doesn't justify a site-ban. This is likely ending up at ARBCOM at this point anyway, so I see no reason to break precedent to try to de-sysop here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is absurd. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2018 (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.

corruption[edit]

I think what offends some people is that I pointed out what probably many know: These noticeboards are saturated in corruption. Crowdsourcing works well for contributions and very badly for these regulatory things. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Very nice non-specific WP:Casting aspersions, Michael Hardy; reminds me of some 3AM Tweets I've seen.
So how, exactly, are these boards "corrupt"? Lay some of your facts on us, oh "one of the most respected editors on Wikipedia". Who is corrupt? Who is paying whom for what? Who is behaving in a manner unbecoming an administrator? (Best not to look in the mirror on that one.) Who are the members of the cabal behind it all? Who's protecting whose behind, and from what? Please be specific, with supporting diffs, Michael Hardy.
We're waiting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
With sadness I have been following the developments of the past days. I would suggest everyone to stop provoking, accusing or replying to accusations, what good does it do? Voorlandt (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2018 (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.

Mathematician gone rogue, Please help ...[edit]

Please, please, can we give this a rest and stop posting multiple brand new discussions all over the place. No, seriously, I'm begging here. We seem to be ending the month with episodes of combat breaking out all over the place, and we're past the full moon (in a waning gibbous phase). How about we all relax for the weekend and try to think good things about each other? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2018 (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.

Needs a site ban, and perhaps closing down of wikiproject Maths, as we don't need any more of their alumni. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:21, 31 August 2018 (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.

Involvement review[edit]

I have fully protected University of Chicago Law School due to a report at AN3 where, while the report was being discussed, multiple previously uninvolved editors appeared at the article to join the edit war. One of the users involved in the report, Lorstaking, has accused me of involvement with respect to their editing in a separate discussion (see User talk:Abecedare. To the best of my knowledge Lorstaking and I have never interacted outside of administrative discussions and user talk pages, and I have taken no action against them directly, though it should be said I find myself frequently disagreeing with them in those discussions. At any rate per the "any admin would do the same" provision, and the facts that the page was already protected recently and that I have never edited the page, I believe my action does not violate WP:INVOLVED. If other admins reach a different consensus then please feel free to undo my page protection, but then please consider watching the page. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not looked at the linked discussion, just general thoughts. WP:INVOLVED is interpreted by different people very broadly. For example, I have seen an interpretation that an admin, coming to protect a page and seeing it for the first time, can not remove obviously inappropriate edits first because they thereby become involved and can not protect the page. For me, this is way off mark, but it was a respected user (I do not remember who, it was quite some time ago), and they were quite serious about it. People argued that the same admin can not protect the page twice because the first protection makes them involved. I would not agree with that either (and I have proteced some pages multiple times, just because there are not infinitely many admins working on RFPP) but I am sure there are users which could interpret this as INVOLVED. I would personally say that if an admin had an exchange with a user on an unrelated topic without severe consequences (like blocks), or if this exchange was purely administrative, protecting a page where this user is edit-warring is not INVOLVED (assuming the admin has no relation to this page). Interpreting this broadly, a user can discuss with all active admins and then claim that all of them are INVOLVED. (I am not claiming that Lorstaking was aiming at this, most likely they did not). Other people could disagree with me, but I guess most would be on my side. Having said this, if a user in good standing complains about INVOLVED, it is always good for an admin to ask for a second opinion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Involved or not, you have protected what shows a promotional version and is also against clear consensus on the talk page. I believe the report had to be left opened. Either the reported edit warring editor had to be blocked or page had to be put under extended confirmed protection per original request. If an editor is still reverting even after getting reported on WP:AN3 then there are obvious chances that the involved offender needs to be blocked and that was the case here. Excelse (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate the input but I see the situation differently. I think that most admins would agree that when many users are edit-warring, it is not constructive nor fair to block just one of those users just because of who got to the noticeboards first - page protection is a better response. And I only protected the extant version at the time I decided to protect (see WP:WRONGVERSION) - if I had chosen a different revision to revert to, then I would be participating in the edit war. The editors can now discuss what material should be restored or removed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
A general rule is that an editor who is still reverting even after being reported to AN3 for the same offense is qualified for a block or should be asked to self-revert. Page protection can be seen as endorsement to edit warring until page protection. Excelse (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
If what you said were true then any edit-warring editor could game the system by reporting editorial opponents to AN3, but fortunately for Wikipedia your "general rule" is not how it works at all. When a report is received, administrators review the situation and decide what is the appropriate preventive course of action. If an edit war is being perpetuated by one editor, often that editor is blocked, and it's just as often the filer of AN3 reports who gets blocked. A page where many editors are edit warring is more often protected, because blocking one editor would not prevent the edit war from continuing. Protection is not an endorsement of edit-warring, it's literally the opposite. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • From the material linked I do not see any INVOLVED issue and the page protection was a reasonable action. There is no indication of editorial involvement or disputes between Ivanvector and Lorstaking nor disagreements between the two so bitter where I would suspect Ivanvector of even the appearance of bias re Lorstalking.
    I would suggest that the editors involved in the dispute be cautioned to address disputed edits in manageable chunks rather than en masse. From what I can see in the page history the original edits were made incrementally so it should not be difficult to address on a per edit, per section or per source basis. Jbh Talk 12:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Ivanvector joined the ANEW report only because it involved me, similar to their involvement on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eulalefty,[4] where Ivanvector disputed the evidence I had provided[5] but two other SPI clerks agreed that the evidence was enough for blocks.[6] These two incidents on two different days occurred after Ivanvector and me had heated disagreements on a discussion already pointed above.[7] You should not be following reports made by a particular editor for disputing their legitimacy per WP:HOUNDING. In the first message on ANEW Ivanvector even claimed that I reverted the editor for the first time after "three months"[8] when I reverted him since first day. There were many other disagreements and it seemed clear that Ivanvector ignoring the problems with the SPA who has probably has COI but find the ways to dispute the legitimacy of my report. However, I agree with the above that it is not even that much of a deal whether Ivanvector was involved or not, the very issue with how he dealt with the report. An SPA who is depending on providing false edit summaries to frequently edit war for retaining his WP:BROCHURE as clearly evident by his 2 recent reverts while already going through an ANEW report. He clearly had to be blocked or warned not to make anymore reverts unless he gains consensus since present consensus is against his version or otherwise he has no consensus. Lorstaking (talk) 12:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • On the issue of the SPI, nothing Ivanvector did makes him INVOLVED with respect to you. Your filings at SPI tend to be overly aggressive, and you often take it personally when members of the SPI team question your evidence. In this instance, Ivanvector's comments were extraordinarily mild. As for your hounding accusation, it takes an awful lot to demonstrate hounding, and you haven't done it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't have anymore to add there, but Ivanvector had asked sanctions for me earlier.[9] And I never take "it personally when members of the SPI team question" the evidence. Lorstaking (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Lorstaking seems to have decided that I'm following him around, though I've explained how I came across the ANEW report in the first place. That seems to be making them perceive intent in my actions which isn't there. Their SPI report on Eulalefty was declined by a checkuser for being stale, and two of the three pairs of comparative diffs that Lorstaking provided did not clearly demonstrate a pattern to me, but they had called it "obvious" so I asked them to clarify so I could understand what was so obvious. They didn't respond to my question but instead provided more evidence, which is just as good, though I still don't understand the pattern and if someone files another report on that case I'll have to ask again. Then another clerk beat me to the block, it was overnight for me. And yes, I did question Lorstaking's ANEW report. Lorstaking and the reported editor sparred three months earlier, after which the reported editor and several others worked together to build out the article with relevant historic details, some of which does appear to need copyediting for NPOV, but nobody seems to have felt during that time that any of the content was unduly promotional. Then Lorstaking reappeared on the article after three months and without discussing the matter at all nor attempting to explain what their issue was with any of the content (other than "same promotion") they removed all of the incrementally added content in a single revert - see where it says "112 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown", they're just going back to their last edit three months ago and undoing everything. I think we might be misunderstanding each other's English but this is what I mean by "after 3 months" but might also be what Lorstaking refers to as "since first day". Lorstaking vaguely hand-waved that there are issues with some of the content, and there are, nobody's saying that the content is perfect, but many other editors have been trying to help with that without resorting to rewinding the article by three months. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:16, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Nicomachian has made 3 reverts since he was warned for edit warring. If you don't want to block then another alternative was to put article under ECP. The page was put under WP:ECP by Kudpung in 9 May 2018,[10] against this same SPA as " Persistent spamming". Why it couldn't be put under ECP this time too when problem is still the same? WP:ECP is made for these reasons. Lorstaking (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Swarm saw fit to full-protect the article at the last instance of protection resulting from this same edit war, I followed suit. At the time of your report you had each reverted twice within the past 24 hours, and in my opinion this round of revert warring began with your mass revert, so it seemed unjust to block the other user. I also didn't fail to notice that a certain set of editors turned up at the article who have a habit of conveniently appearing whenever one of you ends up in a content dispute, and the group of you together have reverted to your 38,492-byte version seven times since 11 August, despite the page having been protected already, and despite other uninvolved users trying to work through the situation. This isn't the one-sided edit war you perceive it to be, and at this time I believe that full protection is the way to deal with the disruptive behaviour on both sides. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes we have already tried that formula before and Nicomachian is still not getting consensus for his edits. There was no reason to repeat what has already failed. If you wanted to follow the same suit then you could do that early or Swarm would've done that when the initial report was made. It would be making sense but you are protecting the article when Nicomachian was already deserving a block for edit warring or a warning to stop reverting. The "mass revert" was justified because we don't retain WP:BROCHURE on main pages and Nicomachian is focused into edit warring to retain it. Like Lyndaship added that "what has been added is an absolute load of filler and guff. Most of the paras can be reduced to a sentence",[11] but to you these are "editors turned up at the article who have a habit of conveniently appearing whenever one of you ends up in a content dispute" which is not only an unfounded accusation but exactly speaks of your bias. There is no consensus to favor the WP:BROCHURE. You are also told here that Nicomachian already deserved the block when he reverted two times after the ANEW, you have made no warning to him "despite" he is repeating this pattern of edit warring and avoiding discussion since last 2/2 protections for the sake of his WP:PROMO, which again shows that you are not neutral in this case. Lorstaking (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You know, if you have any actual interest in improving the article, you could be participating in the discussion on the talk page right now instead of still trying to get your opponent blocked. Nicomachian is "not getting consensus" because every time they try, you wave them off as a spammer and refuse to engage. The only objection you've specified with the content up to this point is the use of the university press as a source, but you're not listening when several uninvolved editors point out that it's fine in this context, and overall you're not listening to many editors now who have asked you to stop reverting because the content is not unduly promotional. You have a valid point about Books LLC, but this one thing does not justify throwing out all of the content. You've alleged misleading edit summaries and sources not supporting content but you have yet to specify any particular instances, and Lyndaship's drive-by comment about "filler and guff" is singularly unhelpful. I haven't "warned" Nicomachian because they were already reported (by you) and because in my view you're the belligerent here.
At any rate, all this nitpicking about who reverted who and which version should be reverted to is pointless bikeshedding. The article is protected so that nobody will revert anybody until the issue is settled. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
"and refuse to engage"? That's completely an unfounded accusation. I am always participating in the discussion, problem is with Nicomachian who almost never participates. No one has pointed until now that the content is "it's fine in the context". No one has asked me to stop reverting and my reverts are not an issue here because I had already stopped reverting. One editor had misunderstanding about the history of this article, just like you who believed that Nicomachian was writing for 3 months when he was simply edit warring without gaining consensus. Now the way you are presenting the only one side of this issue while ignoring the blatant WP:PROMO by an SPA. How it is "belligerent" when I am only adhering the consensus to remove the WP:BROCHURE? Lorstaking (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no such consensus; you seem to have completely made it up. As for Nicomachian "simply edit warring without gaining consensus" that's just simply not true at all, and I can only assume by this point that either there's an error in your browser that makes the article history not show up for you, or you're deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting the truth. Nicomachian and several other editors incrementally built the article, over the course of three months and more than 100 edits, without any evidence at all of edit warring or even any single reverts that I can see. Then you came along, declared all of the edits spam, and rolled back three months worth of work, then edit warred to maintain your version citing a consensus that does not appear to exist at all. That's belligerent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • A few thoughts: WP:INVOLVED reads "an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." No evidence has been provided whatsoever showing that Ivanvector has acted in anything other than an administrative capacity in this situation or with respect to the involved users. To the best of my knowledge such evidence doesn't exist. Furthermore, neither version of the article is particularly good; they both contain reams of unsourced info. Ivanvector is quite justified in not reverting after protecting; if the promotionalism is so blatant, it is the users adding who should be sanctioned first (as they are all registered users). It is bothersome, but not surprising, to see a bunch of editors whose usual areas of interest are far removed from the University of Chicago line up on the same side of a dispute there. Finally, this edit-war is serious enough that Ivanvector would have been justified in protecting the page even if involved, per WP:IAR (and he isn't involved). Vanamonde (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:INVOLVED: "whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area". The above diff here by Lorstaking shows that Ivanvector requested sanctions against Lorstaking, however uninvolved admins didn't sanctioned him or found him qualified for that. That certainly does speaks of "bias". Rest of the incidents have been also mentioned here that does show that Ivanvector could be well watching over the reports made by Lorstaking, though there was no mischief in Lorstaking's part nor the intervention of Ivanvector was really helpful. This incident reminds me of Mike V and The Rambling Man. Mike V had acted in administrative capacity but was biased towards The Rambling Man. I would also conclude that anyone edit warring after warning on their talk page should be blocked right way as that is clear disregard to WP:DR. Page protection was not an ideal choice here. Razer(talk) 15:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Again, this is a cherrypicked diff from a discussion on topic bans for widespread disruptive behaviour under the ARBIPA topic area, on which I was commenting as a neutral administrator. Razer2115 is also misrepresenting the result: eleven editors drew sanctions from that discussion, and GoldenRing's close noted "I am not going to take any action against Lorstaking at this time, though they should note that some have found their participation on noticeboards, and in particular as it relates to [the sanctioned editors], to be disruptive and I advise them to go careful in the future." I don't see an assessment of my competence in that statement. For anyone who wants to review from a neutral perspective, my full statement is in the archive, and you'll note that I either endorsed or proposed sanctions for 12 editors throughout the course of the discussion, which does not demonstrate a bias regarding any one individual. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I am talking only about Lorstaking, not "eleven editors". It is contrary to WP:INVOLVED to first attempt to seek sanctions and then start watching over the reports concerning the same editor/s to find out if they can be sanctioned or otherwise get the negative outcome for their reports. Razer(talk) 16:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the problem with your comment: I was talking about eleven editors. Twelve, actually. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
@Razer2115: an uninvolved administrator opining at AE that sanctions are warranted against an editor does not render them "involved" with that editor. If you had read the full quote, which is helpfully provided by Vanamode immediately above you, you would see that "an administrator who has interacted with an editor ... purely in an administrative role ... is not involved". Given that the interaction you cite obviously falls into that category, which you left out of your quote, you're either intentionally casting aspersions or simply not understanding WP:INVOLVED here. Would you care to explain how this mistake happened? Swarm 17:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Technically that wasn't "purely in an administrative role", because Ivanvector had commented above the section of uninvolved admins on WP:ARE and proposed the sanctions against a number of editors including me but uninvolved admins (commenting under the section of uninvolved admins) didn't sanctioned me and Lorstaking. This is why I had also mentioned the example of V and The Rambling Man, where Mike V had interacted purely in administrative role but was deemed to be biased by the community. Ivanvector recently had negative interactions with Lorstaking as original post mentions, right before he joined the reports that involved him. It does indicate that there are more chances that Lorstaking would see negative results if Ivanvector is going to take any action given the history itself. Razer(talk) 17:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Evidence suggests otherwise. I noted in the ARE thread that I was commenting outside the "uninvolved administrators" section because I had interacted with so many of the editors being discussed through clerking at SPI. I have clerked 4 SPI reports filed or commented on by Lorstaking: [12], [13], [14], [15]. Three of those resulted in the reported users being blocked, and in the fourth I endorsed CheckUser based on Lorstaking's report, though it turned up inconclusive. I'm failing to see how I'm biased against Lorstaking based on the "history", but please do go on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:38, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Even though he made a statement in the "Discussion" section, as opposed to the "Result" section, he was obviously commenting as an uninvolved administrator for the purpose of sharing his observations and recommendations. You're grasping at straws. Swarm 17:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The accusation of involvement at User talk:Abecedare appears to be a frivolous, unsubstantiated aspersion. This is concerning, because the context of the dispute at hand is Lorstaking repeatedly rolling back major changes to an article on the basis that the user they're reverting is obviously a spammer. Myself, Ivan, and at least one other administrator, EdJohnston, as well as users Robminchin and Simonm223, have looked at the situation and don't think it's at all clear that Lorstaking's basis for reverting is in fact true. The accused "spammer" has come across as perfectly willing to engage in discussion to improve their edits, yet Lorstaking seems unable or unwilling to AGF and even try to handle the issue responsibly. Had I actioned this, I probably would have blocked both sides for edit warring, so Ivan's "involved" protection comes across to me as pretty reasonable for a user with an alleged grudge. Swarm 17:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I have been always willing to AGF as evidently I had accepted 10k bytes of the content even though the information was entirely unsourced[16] but not really a violation of core policies. I haven't seen him until now that he is engaging in the discussion unless when he finds his preferred version to have been reverted. He has not addressed any problems yet either. Therefore there has been no violation of a policy by me. @Ivanvector and Swarm: I don't think we need any more opinions now, do you mutually agree with closing the thread? I am inclined to let this go and work to build the consensus. Lorstaking (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I mean, you only "accepted" their content after I suggested you do so. I appreciate you making an effort to work this out, I just wish it had come sooner. Swarm 17:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You have a strange definition of assuming good faith, seeing how you assumed that all of Nicomachian's edits are spam, and that I was deliberately harassing you. At any rate, I'm satisfied that protecting the page was not a violation of WP:INVOLVED, which was really all I was asking about. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Somehow I managed to duck in and edit that article yesterday (adding a minor thing to an image caption) without knowing all that warring was going on (must have been in a lull). Looking at that article history now, wow, I think any reasonable admin would have protected, so no INVOLVE vio. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Noting that I discovered and it has been also agreed on the talk page that protected version violates WP:COPYVIO. Admins are welcome to take action on the diffs as violations occurred since the first edit made by Nicomachian.[17] Lorstaking (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
There was one sentence which appears to have been an inadvertent copyright violation. It was, however, present in much of Nicomachian's work, through subsequent incremental revisions. The affected edits have been suppressed. Two administrators were already on it when Lorstaking posted here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:21, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Nyttend worked on redacting copyvio before anyone and he joined the article after I had posted here. Lorstaking (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest Lorstaking put down the WP:STICK - there are now several editors at the page working it over to address all their concerns without resorting to a 15k rollback and a lot of people are putting time and energy into improvements. Simonm223 (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
That is not the case. It is perfectly valid to correct the misleading timeline of the events. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Can we all stop with the parting shots here? It's not helping anyone or anything. The copyvio has been dealt with. A second potential copyvio that Lorstaking brought up on the talk page is also being dealt with. Any more that are brought up will be dealt with in course. Go do something else. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Page blanked despite unanimous consensus against blanking[edit]

In the spirit of Boing! said Zebedee, click here.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:54, 31 August 2018 (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.

WP:Articles for deletion/Ancestral health has been blanked and protected despite a unanimous consensus of 13 admins and experienced editors against blanking: [18]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to open up another thread about this? Is it really all that important? I can certain see considering it a slap in the face to WP:CONSENSUS, but what, exactly, do you think will come of opening the issue up again? Aren't you getting into an internal-RIGHTINGGREAT(Wikipedia)WRONGS area? After all, the AfD is just blanked, not suppressed, so the whole thing is in the history for anyone to read it who wishes to. I ask these questions as someone who !voted against blanking it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
One practical thing I can see coming out of this is an RfC which disallows discussions on Jimbotalk from overriding a recent consensus on the Noticeboards. If Jimbo himself wants to take action as a result of a discussion there, that's a different matter, but I think we should remove the future possibility of a discussion there being used as an end-run around an already determined community consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
It is important to note that the protecting administrator, Dlohcierekim, protected the page because of the "Edit warring / content dispute" happening there, not to enforce their preferred version. It does not appear that they were involved in the matter before they answered a request regarding the page at WP:RFPP. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Blank per Jimbo "someone is sad, and Wikipedia is not here to make people sad. So we want to respond in a helpful and loving way" [19] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Is this really the justification given by Jimbo for blanking? It's one of the most insipid things I've read in a good while. Wikipedia is not here to make anyone glad or sad, because the emotional well-being of our readers is no more our business then their sex-lives, their favorite adult beverage, or the decor of their kitchens. We are an informational resource, and because of the kind of resource we are, we by necessity carry on internal debates about what is and is not suitable for inclusion in our encyclopedia. Whether those debates please or displease, gladden or sadden, or depress or enthuse our readers is totally irrelevant. If he really said this, I think that Jimbo has gone off the rails and forgotten the purpose of this thing of ours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with readers. This is about backroom pages. If someone is sad about the truth revealed in a backroom page and would be happier if it were blanked, why not? The page is not hidden from any editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
The source is linked. Note the year of 2006. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:07, 31 August 2018 (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.

Thread bump[edit]

Above thread/request has been closed (it received significant participation within the few hours after this was posted). Primefac (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2018 (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.

Uninvolved admins and editors are invited to comment on the above thread #RfC close review, notably following the #Closer's rationale and #Rebuttal: no consensus by the OP (me) who requested a close review. Many thanks in advance. — JFG talk 13:24, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

JFG, Thanks:-) I was planning a thread-bump, too! WBGconverse 16:01, 31 August 2018 (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.

9250 Cordell Drive and the connected AfD[edit]

Move request withdrawn. Let's see how the AfD pans out. – Joe (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2018 (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.

A few minutes ago, James500, boldly moved the above named article to Cordell Drive and added more content to it. 9250 Cordell Drive has been at AfD for about three weeks. After the last relist, a consensus seemed to be forming to delete, but there is clearly no consensus to move. My contention is the move was disruptive and am asking that it be undone so the AfD can run its course. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  • This is preposterous. It is not disruptive to improve an article. Unless John thinks that 9250 Cordell Drive is notable, there is no problem. The move clearly has a basis in WP:ATD and WP:NOTBURO. The only possible explanation for this thread that I can think of is that John knows perfectly well that Cordell Drive as a whole is notable and that the article is likely to be kept if it stays where it is. James500 (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
From WP:RM:

Requests to revert recent undiscussed controversial moves may be made at WP:RM/TR. If the new name has not become the stable title, the undiscussed move will be reverted.

Clearly, policy backs my request.John from Idegon (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Except that the correct forum is WP:RM, not AN, and all that would be achieved is that I would make a request for move at RM, and that request would be certain to succeed (WP:SNOW), since you have no valid grounds for objecting to the move, since you deny that number 9250 is notable. So, as I said, NOTBURO backs my move. James500 (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • James500, in case you weren't aware, the longstanding advice at WP:AFDEQ is that moving articles while they're at AfD is to be avoided because it confuses the discussion and makes closing it more difficult. However, @John from Idegon: I agree that the move was not disruptive and I don't see any point in moving it back. The AfD will continue and the outcome will apply to this page regardless of what title it currently has. At the moment it's looking like a delete, so unless a lot of editors change their mind in the next two days, the move makes absolutely no difference. – Joe (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Joe Roe, respectfully, I disagree. The quote I pulled above does not appear to give the administrator handling the request adminstrative discretion. It does not say "may", it does not say "should", it says "will". Admittedly, I've asked in the wrong place, but that is what WP:NOTBURO is for. His move was not an improvement to the article that would rightfully be considered by those voting at Afd, but instead obscures the subject being discussed. John from Idegon (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: What I am trying to say is that moving an article back and forth purely on procedural grounds is a waste of time when it's at AfD anyway. It's hard to see how this move is controversial otherwise. Do you actually have an objection to the new title, aside from the fact it was moved during an AfD and without prior discussion? – Joe (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I do, as not only did he move the page, but he added a bunch of additional content about other houses on the street. It is not the same article that was nominated for deletion. But you know what? I'll withdraw my request. I don't think the new article is any more notable than the old one, so if, as you say is likely, it is deleted, then if and when he recreates it, it can be speedy deleted. Following consensus is generally the best way to go...trying to force it usually has unexpected negative consequences, and this is no exception. If he would have created a new article, he may have had a chance to sway the AfD to merge. You can close this. John from Idegon (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Adding additional sources and content was an attempt to improve the article to or towards the WP:HEYMANN standard. That is normally considered to be a good thing. James500 (talk) 06:59, 1 September 2018 (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.

"Let this be your final warning. Your additions are inappropriate. Stop. Now."[edit]

OP warned. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Let this be your final warning. Your additions are inappropriate. Stop. Now."
--Dirk Beetstra T C 19:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
appears to be misleading and continues the state of this article as:
"this article contains content that is written like an advertisement."
these were removed by User:Beetstra:
www.chaneln5.com/ Jean-Pierre Jeunet's film – Chanel website
these links were there before I started editing:
it is a deadlink which redirects to www.chaneln5.com which I updated to a Archive.org link
this "Jean-Pierre Jeunet's film" is what CHANEL publishes as www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5r5PXBiwR0
it was added to fix the dead link
this was there before I started editing
this was there before I started editing
User:Beetstra removed a disambiguation for the 1928 painting by Charles Demuth|I Saw the Figure 5 in Gold
a "5" related page
User:Beetstra removed a citation URL to books.google.com/books/about/The_Secret_of_Chanel_No_5.html
yet User:Beetstra left books.google.com/books/about/Sleeping_with_the_Enemy.html
User:Beetstra removed a external URL The N°5 War (La guerre du N°5)] (2017 Documentary)
about the owners of Chanel No. 5
Linking to user-submitted video sites
User:Beetstra is misinterpreting youtube, there are many classes of content distributed by youtube:
  • youtube original scripted
  • movies distributed by youtube for fee
  • music and talk, licensed to youtube and distributed for free
  • "corporate": music, news, and other video by verified users such as CBS, CNN,NBC
  • uploaded anonymous content
the video I added is not uploaded anonymous content but from Chanel
  • What it looks like is, that User:Beetstra just decided to just delete all my work, without analyzing anything.

69.181.23.220 (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Beetstra is blocking me from writing to User_Talk:Beetstra :
"Warning: An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive. Please be aware that vandalism may result in revocation of your editing privileges. If this edit is constructive, please click 'Publish changes' again, and report this error."
(same content as this section)
69.181.23.220 (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Please learn what "automated" means instead of blaming people. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
people configure filters, what I posted at User_Talk:Beetstra was not blocked here, is this not suspicious?
69.181.23.220 (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
A filter automatically compares every edit made to Wikipedia against a defined set of conditions. If an edit matches the conditions of a filter, that filter will respond by logging the edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
That. Also, WP:ELMIN is what you should be focusing on. Anyway, this is a content dispute, and Dirk has policy on his side. I suggest you discuss on the article's talk page if you want to press the matter. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
there are many youtube linked to on Wikipedia that are not uploaded anonymous content
I did not link to uploaded anonymous content
69.181.23.220 (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Trying to follow the narrative here. What's the narrative? Drmies (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: why did you delete from User_Talk:Beetstra my {{subst:AN-notice}}? 69.181.23.220 (talk) 00:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I thought that was an ANI notice. How about this: Beetstra knows. Good luck. Hey--can you be a bit more economical in your posts? We're all living on borrowed time and stolen energy, and you didn't have to repeat the actual notification. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
3 different types of {{subst:AN-notice}} - 69.181.23.220 (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
XLinkBot is falsely accusing me of linking to uploaded anonymous content and admins are falsely accusing me of over-linking to youtube username as the file's author, which seem a more complete web cite. Only "corporate": music, news, and other video by verified users such as CNN were added, the admins claim otherwise.
The threat of a block by false claims by admins is why notices were posted
69.181.23.220 (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Discuss the appropriateness of the link on the talkpage. Bluster on the noticeboards isn't going to accomplish anything. Acroterion (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
https://genderdesk.wordpress.com/category/dirk-beetstra/
The threat of a block by false claims by admins is not a page content issue, it may be a Wikipedia culture issue
69.181.23.220 (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I see no "false claim" - you were inserting a link to a movie that is Chanel advertising. You were correctly warned. Other edits of yours seem reasonable, but you need to explain, politely, on the talkpage why your edits comply with external link policy, rather than blustering here. And your assertion that Beetstra is "blocking you from his talkpage" is nonsense.Acroterion (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I warned you just a couple of days ago that your re-insertion of a YouTube was not appropriate. You have tons of XLinkBot warnings of such additions. Here again, you go from 4 links to 7, where already the first 4 are questionable. You are right, YouTube movies are not forbidden, but they are discouraged, and regarding external links you are too often adding links that are not appropriate. You are not heeding XLinkBot's warnings, you are just reverting him. And we keep cleaning behind you.

So I stand with that remark: this is your final warning. Fail to heed XLinkBot again, and I will impose blocks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


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

CheckUser and Oversight appointments 2018: Announcement[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process.

  • 1 September: Request for candidates to apply (via email to arbcom-en-c@lists.wikimedia.org).
  • 23:59 UTC, 12 September: Candidate submissions close, vetting begins.
  • 13 September: The Arbitration Committee and current Functionaries will vet the candidates.
  • 15 September: Vetting ends, successful candidates contacted by 18 September.
  • 18 September: Candidates published on-wiki, community feedback invited.
  • 23:59 UTC, 29 September: Community comments end.
  • By 11 October: Appointed candidates announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/2018 CUOS appointments
  • Are we going to get a real CU workshop sometime in mid-October? Drmies (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: I plan to make myself available in mid-October for one-on-one training of the new CheckUsers, but that would be for those who are already technically proficient (e.g. the "new hires"). I plan to do more of a workshop approach in January for the new arbs and possibly former arbs who are less technically proficient but wish to understand the CU tool better. So yes, I think a training process should materialize this time around. ~ Rob13Talk 12:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Closing an edit-warring report as a 3RR report[edit]

Hi, the administrator User:RegentsPark recently closed an edit-warring report I made as a 3RR report with no violation. In the discussion I explicitly mentioned I am not making a 3RR report, and closing the discussion as such is, I feel, a deliberate misrepresentation of the problem that was reported.

Please open the discussion and close it as an edit-warring discussion, not a 3RR discussion. Bright☀ 08:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Or you could do what RegentsPark suggested you do: file a complaint at ANI. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
@BrightR: WP:AN3 is not meant to be a place for handling long term edit warring issues (or any long term issues for that matter). If you feel an editor needs to be sanctioned for perennially edit warring, you need wider community input, and the best place for that is ANI (or AE if it involves arb sanctioned pages). Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 12:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Huh? The title of the page is literally Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and the first line in the series of boxes relevant to that page is This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule (emphasis mine). Unless you're reading "active" to mean "making the reverts over the past X hours", the page seems exactly the place to report any kind of edit warring. You don't need to violate 3RR to be listed at that page. --Izno (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Izno, the complainant is alleging hounding and long term edit warring on multiple articles, that's something that should be addressed at community level because it would need more context. On the complaint itself, there was no bright line violation and BMK had stated that they would not be reverting further. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 13:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Still it's wrong to close a discussion as if it's about 3RR when it is not about 3RR. Bright☀ 20:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • RP's action was quite correct. ANEW is for addressing recent edit-warring, typically violations of 3RR or 1RR. There was no violation here. BrightR's report was describing a recent (minor) conflict as an example of long-term behavioral issues. The place for that is ANI. If you wish to pursue this further, please open a discussion there (and if it's a really long-term pattern, you should open a discussion here, at AN). Vanamonde (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Closing a discussion (or undoing a block) by shifting the focus perpetuates the problem. For example, RegentsPark closed a discussion by shifting the focus of the close to consensus and reverts (it is confined to statements about consensus and reverts). BMK admitted almost no wrongdoing (I do not lie; responsibility to build a consensus [is] not mine; deserving of a slap on the wrist) and promptly returned to incivility, edit-warring, and disregarding consensus. If the close addressed these issues instead of shifting the focus, change could have been effected.
This discussion isn't about BMK though, I'm just asking RegentsPark to frame the close correctly. There is a huge difference between Pictogram voting x.svg No violation and Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked, especially when it comes to preventing a recurring problem. Bright☀ 20:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
It's not required for a report to specifically allege a 3RR violation in order to be declined per "no 3RR violation". If RegentsPark completely ignored the fact that you were complaining about a long-term problem, I would understand your frustration, but they directly addressed that in their close, simply directing you to the correct forum. If you are simply interpreting "no violation" as a complete invalidation of your complaint, that is not the case. We use a script called 'response helper' and it gives us several responses to choose from at AN3. The response you saw was just the canned response for declining reports due to the lack of a 3RR violation, which was technically correct; the subsequent comments directing you to ANI was RP's actual response that he typed. The "no violation" template itself is does not inherently imply there's no basis for an edit warring complaint, it's just a "stamp" that indicates that the report has not been actioned due to the lack of a 3RR violation. It was not an intentional attempt to misrepresent your report, nor reject the basis for it. Swarm 19:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Reverts on Battle of Kursk[edit]

Content dispute. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 3 September 2018 (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.

(non-admin closure) Content dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2018 (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.

Stop them, please. I wrote some information in Battle of Kursk. But two men (both of them are German) removed all of which. Their reason is "Unbelievable data because the author is Russian". So funny!Utakem8 (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Utakem8: You say they say that, but I don't see that in the edit summaries or the talk page. Could you provide a WP:DIFF where they actually said that? Because otherwise it looks like you're making up stuff and imagining their reasons instead of actually bothering to understand them. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
08:26, 30 August 2018 Dennis said "Unbelievable data and hardly unbiased data for german losses" and removed my information - but he didn't show the reason why he said that (book, link...)
17:41, 31 August 2018‎ Dircovic said "Litwinenko also reassess Soviet losses and claim that they have been overstated by various Russian historians such as Grigoriy Krivosheev, Boris Sokolov and Andrei Zubov and they should be comparable to German losses" and removed my information - but he didn't show the reason why he said that (book, link...)
May be I imagine nationalist hatred. But they removed a valid source (without a valid reason) is wrong, ok! If they do it again, plese stop themUtakem8 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
See WP:BRD and WP:DR. Go to the article's talk page. Explain why the source is valid and ask for elaboration on their reasons. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2018 (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.

As you said, I tried to talk. Their reason are only personal view, they didn't show a valid reason (book, web link...), But they still remove my information, again and again.. Please stop them!Utakem8 (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You must not have understood WP:BRD. You need to keep discussing matters until some sort of consensus is reached. That consensus might not include your ideas. Stop asking us to "stop them," that's not how this page or the administrator tools work.
You just went onto the page, said the book was reliable, and told them to stop. Don't do that. Present actual reasons why the book is valid. Explain things. Stop telling people "stop that!" Ian.thomson (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Utakem8 Please read our policies WP:BRD, WP:DR and WP:CONSENSUS, and follow them on the article talk page and not here. I have renamed the title of this section to something meaningful as per the policy--DBigXray 14:26, 2 September 2018 (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.

Pablo Morgado Blanco[edit]

Article has been stated to be significantly different, so AFD is the only way forward to proceed. Nothing more to say or do here. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 2 September 2018 (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.

Should this not be deleted? It was recreated by User:Abhishe78 right after this AfD, yet Admin User:Ivanvector felt it shouldn't be deleted under G4, even know it still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also Abhishe78 continues to restore his deleted articles even know they fail WP guidelines. Could another admin please review the situation thanks. Govvy (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

  • I declined deletion because the recreated version was significantly improved, and as I said on the article's talk page I felt that the rationale for deletion no longer applied. The player is signed with a top-tier professional club but has not played as the club has not yet started its season, so yes, he fails the letter of the guideline. Because the season starts in less than a month I offered to move the page to draft as a compromise, but several editors insist it must be deleted. If a reviewing admin feels it should be deleted then I won't object, but I will restore the article on request the moment the player touches the playing surface. As for the allegation that Abhishe78 is serially recreating deleted articles, I know nothing of it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Being a regular at AfD (and not involved in this case) I thought to weigh in. The above comment by Ivanvector is a perfect case of WP:FUTURE, although it is almost certain for the season to start but the same cannot be said for the player to play. He could injure himself in a training or be left out due to many other possible reasons. Articles are kept in mainspace, only when their notability "has happened" not when the notability is expected to happen WP:TOOSOON. Deleting or Userfying/Drafting should have been the appropriate admin action to be done here in my opinion. If (as Ivan says) " several editors insist it must be deleted. " and with valid reasons, doesn't it point out to the current WP:CONSENSUS ? And even if the CSD was denied nothing stops Govvy or others to AfD this again and let community decide. regards--DBigXray 13:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, four other editors decided it should be deleted last time around, I really don't see too much extra which makes me think it should be kept in main space. The article currently isn't in draft space, I would have no objects to that. I do question Abhishe78 methods and his talk page isn't a pretty sight. Govvy (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
I have looked at User:Abhishe78's contribution His judgement on Notability may not match the Wiki standards. Govvy What is your opinion If I propose to place User:Abhishe78 on a Mandatory restriction for a reasonable time to only use WP:AFC route for any new article he creates from now onwards. --DBigXray 13:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Whether the subject is notable or not is irrelevant. Admins aren't permitted to delete articles because they think the subject isn't notable, or because an ad hoc group of editors ask them to. This is clearly not eligible for G4 or any other speedy deletion criterion, so it needs to go to AfD – it's as simple as that.
Sometimes I despair at how discussion-averse and process-centric deletion is getting. Regardless of Abhishe78's editing history, he has put some effort into rewriting this article, and it costs us little to nothing to take a week to talk about whether it is now suitable for inclusion. This thread has probably already sucked up more volunteer time than a second AfD would have. – Joe (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposed interface administrator process[edit]

A request for comment is being held at Wikipedia talk:Interface administrators#RfC: Approving the updated proposal to determine whether we should adopt a proposed process for managing the interface administrator user right. Mz7 (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added None
removed AsterionCrisco 1492KFKudpungLizRandykittySpartaz
renamed Optimist on the runVoice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added AmorymeltzerMr. StradivariusMusikAnimalMSGJTheDJXaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Confirmed flag for AWB alternate account[edit]

The user can request it themselves if they want it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2018 (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 L293D (AWB) (talk · contribs) go ahead and be given the confirmed flag? They have confirmed that they're the alternate account of L293D. Therefore, I see no reason why their changes should have to be approved when they edit a PC protected article or why their edits should be caught in the general test filter.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 02:57, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

L293D can drop a note at WP:PERM/C if they want. — xaosflux Talk 03:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, @SkyGazer 512: I've left them the mandatory notice that is all over this page for when you want to start a discussion about another editor. — xaosflux Talk 03:18, 4 September 2018 (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.

Would this be paid editing?[edit]

See this page for details of the research and other issues.WBGconverse 05:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi all. Around a year ago, a WMF staff member reached out to me about participating in some external research to understand how experienced closers on Wikipedia go about closing an RfC or other similar discussion. At the time, I received compensation for participating in the interview, but no on-wiki contributions were made, so no paid editing disclosure was needed. Now, I've been contacted for a follow-up. The researcher has developed a tool that attempts to assist editors in analyzing and closing RfCs. They're looking for editors on Wikipedia to use the tool to close an RfC and then provide feedback on it in a follow-up interview. It's unclear to me whether this would require a paid contribution disclosure. While I would be compensated partially for making an edit, the actual contents of the edit are entirely up to me; I choose which RfC to close, and I close it exactly how I would normally with no input from any outside party. I simply test out their tool while doing it.

Could I get some opinions on whether this counts as "paid editing" that would require a disclosure? ~ Rob13Talk 00:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the same position as Rob.So, comments are equally welcome from my end:-)WBGconverse 06:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, now you've disclosed it, so whether or not it counts, you're safe :-) Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Nyttend: While I've quite literally disclosed it here, this disclosure wouldn't meet the requirements of a paid-contribution disclosure per WP:PAID. For a variety of reasons, I wouldn't be willing to disclose in the manner demanded there. If I put a disclosure on my user page, I'm worried it will be taken the wrong way (e.g. to mean I'm paid for my contributions generally) or used by abusive paid editors as "proof" there are paid administrators. If I disclose in the edit summary/talk page related to whatever RfC I decide to close, I'm worried it will be used by any participants who are unhappy with the result to challenge my close, even though I would (of course) perform it neutrally and without any outside influence. Worst case, if the community isn't clear that this doesn't require a disclosure, I'll participate in the study while requesting the researcher take what compensation would come my way and donate it to the WMF instead. ~ Rob13Talk 14:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Worth disclosing (as you have), but no, that's not paid editing. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • It's clearly paid editing and it is fine to undertake with the required disclosure. Btw, in my experience most university ethic boards overseeing such research would advice that that the compensation structure for such research be based not upon the number of RFCs the participant closes (since that would create a perverse incentive) but on a fair estimate of time/effort devoted to giving feedback on how well the tool worked.
(It hopefully doesn't need to be said, but my comment is about the principles involved, and not the persons. BU Rob13 IMO is taking exactly the right approach by being open about the project and inviting feedback here.) Abecedare (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, I don't see this as any different than (say) editing while at work (where you are allowed to "browse the web" if you have no other tasks to do). Could you explain your reasoning? Hobit (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
The compensation is technically for the feedback, not the act of closing an RfC. Of course, closing a single RfC is necessary in order to evaluate the tool. Does that change anything for you, Abecedare? ~ Rob13Talk 14:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: The fact that you are getting paid for the feedback, and not the close(s) themselves addresses exactly the issue I had raised in my post above, and increases my confidence that this is a thoughtfully-designed research project. But IMO the requirement for disclosure remains since the payment still creates a secondary incentive for you to close RFCs (I am ignoring the possibility of using the tool in the sandbox). Now, I realize that in your case that inducement is essentially a hypothetical concern, but the very point of having universal ethical and disclosure guidelines is to avoid such case-by-case considerations. Consider the thought experiments:
  • Lets say the researchers had put up an ad on Mechanical Turk: "Use this tool to close an RFC on wikipedia, and you'll get paid for your feedback". Would we not call that paid editing?
  • Or lets say, instead of of being open in your original post, you had logged out and posted as an IP, "Hi all. I have an account on wikipedia and around a year ago..." Would we then not have asked that the activity be disclosed?
Now both the above scenarios, and especially the first one, raise concerns other than the simple question of whether the activity is paid or not. But my aim in presenting them is to (hopefully) show that if we anonymize the scenario (ie. remove you and and your established on-wiki reputation from consideration), it becomes clear that the activity does qualify as (ethical) paid editing. Does that make sense to you/others? Abecedare (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
In both of the scenarios you listed, no one would be required to disclose. Payment for use of a tool and providing feedback on it is not payment for contributions.
Also, I’ll repeat my objections to saying that our standards are the same for research conducted on Wikipedia as a topic vs. commercial editing, and note how much I hate the use of “paid editing” as a term. The TOU and our guidelines were intended to target commercial editors and make it harder for them to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. In an attempt to make it seem like we aren’t discriminating against spammers, we sometimes take ridiculous stances like the community appears to be taking in this case by forcing an arbitrator who is well known for his privacy concerns (I think this is a fair description of Rob) to disclose more than is required under the TOU, breaching his personal privacy for a minimal sum just because a blind reading of the TOU without looking at the context can be read as “money must be disclosed.” That’s not the intent here, nor is it required, and forcing disclosure in these circumstances only increases the legitimacy of parties who use the disclosure as a weapon to ignore local policies on advertising for their clients. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Given the key phrase from the terms of service, "...you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation", RFC closures are encompassed as a contribution. As the FAQ says, "...you must disclose your employment, client, and affiliation when making any type of paid contribution to any Wikimedia project. This includes edits on talk pages and edits on projects other than Wikipedia." isaacl (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
@Isaacl: I suppose that may actually be the key here. I'm not actually required to make a contribution to Wikipedia in order to receive this compensation, technically. I have an option to "close" an already closed RfC. The compensation is for the feedback on the tool, not the edit I would be making. Does that change your thoughts? ~ Rob13Talk 15:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand: are you saying it is sufficient for you to use the tool to figure out how you might have closed an RfC, and then report this to the study in a way other than editing Wikipedia? If no contributions to Wikipedia are involved, then the terms of service do not come into effect. isaacl (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
That would be sufficient to complete the feedback phase and receive compensation, yes. Obviously, if I spent time closing a difficult RfC, though, I'd like that close to be implemented. Otherwise, I'm wasting some other volunteer's time to repeat my close. ~ Rob13Talk 18:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I don’t think this falls under WP:PAID, and don’t think the mandatory disclosure applies (for full disclosure, Rob asked me about this before, and I told him the same thing, but agreed it would be best to get community feedback in the interest of transparency.) Rob would be paid for providing feedback on a tool, not paid for any specific action taken on-wiki. Classifying this as paid editing is equivalent to the strawman argument that getting an $8 coupon to buy a sandwich at a university cafe during an editathon counts as paid editing: it doesn’t, it clearly isn’t the intent of the terms of use or the local guidelines, and people need to stop pretending that the TOU disclosure requirement is broader than it actually is. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree this isn't the same as conventional paid editing. For better or worse, the terms of usage are broadly drawn to minimize gaming, and it's too easy to see how non-neutral interests can influence editing through compensation of supporting tools. Think of how the soft-drink industry funds studies on the value of hydration; it could fund edit-a-thons where it didn't direct you to edit any specific pages, but provided you with tools to help find hydration-related information. Or... it could fund a study much like this one, to see if RfCs for hydration-related topics are closed differently based on the tool. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
      • And it wouldn’t be paid editing or covered by the terms of use, which cover only paid contributions to Wikimedia projects. Not analysis of contributions to Wikimedia projects or being a test subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, agreed, as I said above, the terms of usage only take effect for contributions. But if the test subject is making edits as direct part of the study, even if it's the tool that's being evaluated, then the edit is a consequence of the compensation. isaacl (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Responding to the