Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive311

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Netoholic[edit]

Prior recent/relevant discussions

Background[edit]

Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Netoholic has (in several words) challenged my close of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men as out of process,[1][2][3] WP:INVOLVED,[4][5][6][7][8] WP:BADNAC,[9] a form of WP:GAMING,[10][11] edit warring,[12][13] and the like. I have disputed all of those claims at my talk page. Despite actively discussing this matter with me, decided to revert my close again (more background on my talk page and ANEW report). They have since been blocked for edit warring.[14] As Bilorv so succinctly put it: The person who was edit warring is the one who made six reverts, deliberately trying to game 3RR, not the people who made two reverts each, with encouragements to discuss the matter in their edit summaries.

I am submitting this closure for self-review since Neto is blocked. It's not that I don't stand by my close at this point. It's that Netoholic has flat out stated that nothing less than this proposal being up for several years would be sufficient to them.[15] I feel that is an absurd request to make from an editor who seems to be demonstrating clear WP:IDHT.

Should I be reverted and what is to be said of the actions concerning Netoholic? –MJLTalk 14:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Endorse per the deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Men after an AfD in which the closer wrote (in part) Consensus appears to be that this project violates WP:POINT and/or WP:NPOV, plus concerns about the clarity of the scope, the redundancy to existing projects (chiefly WP:MEN) ... Netoholic violated WP:FORUMSHOP by making a council proposal page, and there were no (other) supporters of the project despite widespread discussion about it so it's clearly not a productive area to keep discussing over and over again. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t really see much of anything to close. It had three participants. Wikiprojects on the whole are dead (with a few notable exceptions such as MILHIST) and I honestly had no clue that the “WikiProject Council” even existed beyond a weird logo on talk pages that we’d never bothered to get rid of. Pointless close because a three person discussion about a loosely/not at all regulated part of Wikipedia doesn’t consensus make. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse - project was clearly a duplicate or fork of WP:MEN, or else so broad in scope (things of interest to men? as in, basically everything?) as to be useless. Netoholic should focus this energy on rejuvenating WP:MEN if that's their interest. Maybe they didn't intend their project proposal to be pointy, but it became pointy anyway. Might I also suggest marking the WikiProject Council proposals process historic if it's so poorly attended? Expecting things to wait years for approval indicates a process that has outlived its usefulness. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I’d agree with this. I’m not exactly thrilled with Netoholic’s behaviour here and don’t really think the close should be “overturned” but I also don’t really see much of a point to it since that can hardly be called a discussion. If people want to create a WikiProject, let them and then sort it out at MfD if it causes issues. Most of them no one will even notice. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • ... sort it out at MfD if it causes issues. At the MfD of the proposal page, three editors !voted close and the closer wrote "Closing/archiving the proposal should not require MfD intervention." [16] Looks to me like consensus to close. Endorse. Levivich 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Reclose with an uninvolved closer This is a mess all around. I don't quite see how RL0919 gets keep from this discussion. So I would say that is a bad close that should be overturned and if this weren't already here and I was made aware of it I would take it to DRV. The fact that there was something to nominate (again) is POINTY behavior, which is only shown further by the edit warring that went on around that so good block there. However, MJL was clearly not an uninvolved editor in all this and as such should clearly not have been the person closing this. I don't think his close was wrong, but the reason WP:RFC calls for an uninvolved editor is precisely so that accusations of bad faith on the closer's part are harder to level. And while this isn't the forum for it I would support efforts to mark the WikiProject Council as historical. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Endorse This is typical IDHT territory and Netoholic needs to be probably TBanned from these spheres, because because his arguments seem to be approaching MRA-esque stuff very rapidly. But, MJL, you were not the best-placed editor to close this. WBGconverse 16:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @Barkeep49 and Winged Blades of Godric: I would agree that I may not have been the best person to close this, but that is why I made my offer to discuss this out first with Neto.[17] I was rather shocked that they chose to edit war over it rather than actually just be cordial and polite. I'm not unreasonable, and I generally revert when asked for the right reasons.[18] I'd like to additionally discuss the topic ban that WBG mentioned. It might be overdue here. –MJLTalk 16:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Since I was pinged: I have no opinion about whether or not this proposal should be closed, but I hope that I was clear that the result at the Miscellany for deletion (writing that out in full as a reminder that "deletion" is part of the name) discussion about the proposal was only that the proposal page should not be deleted, not that it shouldn't be closed. Closing or not closing proposals isn't the focus of MfD as a forum. If the participants on the page can't resolve it there (which it seems they can't), then a dispute resolution venue such as this one is the right place for that to be decided. --RL0919 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    As the person who pinged you, I think your close was clear. I just don't see how you reached a consensus of keep from that discussion especially as only a couple months before a different MfD came to a delete decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    One MfD was about an actual WikiProject and the other MfD was about a proposal for a possible WikiProject, so I don't see different results as that surprising. In the discussion I closed, out of eight participants only the nominator and one other flatly favored deletion, with a third being open to deletion as an option. Most of the rest wanted the page kept but the proposal closed. I think it is very reasonable to ask why the author of the proposal would look at that MfD and think it was appropriate to revert the subsequent closure of the project proposal, but in the MfD close itself I was trying to stick to only addressing the normal remit of MfD. --RL0919 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well given the pretty strong consensus against the project's existence at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men, and the lack of any support other than the OP for creating the project in the discussion in question, we clearly don't have consensus for creating the project. Anybody who does want to create it needs to define it in such a way that it has a meaningful scope which isn't just that of WP:MEN and similar projects on gender issues. A projects focusing on the men's rights movement and related topics would clearly duplicate WP:MEN and there wasn't any articulated benefit for having a project to improve biographies of men. Hut 8.5 20:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at Netoholic's block log. A lot of it is irrelevant ancient history, but two 24-hour blocks in the last three months suggest there is still a problem with unnecessary edit warring. The entries in the block log suggest that Netoholic was under a 1RR restriction at some point. Is now a good time to re-impose it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • IMO the problematic recent history extends beyond just the edit warring blocks:
  • Reclose with an uninvolved closer. This may have been the correct outcome of the discussion (given Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men). However, the close does not reflect the actual discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men (3 comments - Netholic + 2 others) - there's certainly no consensus for opening the WikiProject (or, given 3 participants, for much of anything) - however the only talk of a redirect is by the closer. Furthermore, MJL is clearly involved given their numerous comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men. Icewhiz (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Icewhiz: It's pretty established I was involved despite my initial protest and grumblings to such. The redirect portion of the close was brought by Jo-Jo Eumerus's initial close of MFD:WP:MEN and then UnitedStatesian's first close of WP:COUNCIL/P/Men (the latter who've I pinged before regarding this issue but doesn't seem to want to get involved further). Either way, if whoever closes this thread wants to reclose mine, then that's fine with me.
    I'd just prefer to see this matter conclusively resolved, though. –MJLTalk 18:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Reverse close. Netoholic and I do not always see eye to eye (to put it mildly), but I don't see the harm in this proposal being left open. (Disclosure: I was, briefly, a member of Netoholic's original WikiProject Men.) WanderingWanda (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Why did the proposal get closed at all? Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals do not normally get "closed". It's usually pointless to start a WikiProject page when you only have three possible participants (I ran the numbers years ago; you need a lot more than three people to keep the group going for even one year), but there's no bureaucracy over there. I've wondered, in fact, whether the proposal process ought to be shut down, or replaced by hard requirements that are designed to minimize the risk of creating a soon-to-be-inactive WikiProject (e.g., "Get six active participants to sign up, not counting any newbies, or we'll delete your WikiProject page"). But pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men don't need to be closed, and since nobody is required to make a proposal to create a WikiProject page, it seems particularly strange to have a formal closure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing: In this case, the relevant WikiProject page was deleted. Neto needs consensus to bring it back, but that hasn't happened here. idk if this is the best place to discuss the WikiProject Council system or not. I just know that this discussion, like all discussion pages there, need to come to a close eventually. That's just at least according to the page itself. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯MJLTalk 05:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    It's perfectly normal for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men to get closed; it's closing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men that's unusual. If you meant "He created it, and then we deleted it at MFD", then the message should probably say that, with a link to the MFD discussion, rather than saying that it was "not created", which (it sounds like) isn't actually true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Revert close, and TBAN Netoholic. The close by @MJL was broadly correct in substance, but MJL was involved so should have recused themselves. The close should be reverted so that someone else can close it.
That's a small detail, easily sorted.
The real big issue here is that Netoholic has a severe and log-standing WP:IDHT problem. The core of it is very very simple: WikiProjects are venues for editors to collaborate, but there is almost nobody who wants to collaborate with Netoholic on this topic. So at this time there is no case for making a WikiProject Men.
Sadly, Netoholic's response has come perilously close to full spiderman. We have had the same basic issue sprawling over into multiple venues, always with the same outcome, but Netoholic ploughs on regardless. It's time to topic ban Netoholic from anything related to gender. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) I think this is a very reasonable suggestion. --JBL (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Fram case opened[edit]

The arbitration committee have opened a case on Fram at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram. This case is to be held in private, with evidence and workshop proposals to be submitted by email — see the evidence and workshop case pages for instructions. For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Fram case opened

Malformed WP:AFD by WP:SPA[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Howard Finder is a malformed AFD.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Is there any indication that this might plausibly be a good faith nomination, maybe by the subject themselves or their proxy? Setting up AFDs can be hard, so unless it's blatantly some sort of attack I'd say just reformat the AFD with the proper templates and see what happens. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
EDIT: I'll leave the first half for discussion, but I've fixed the formatting in the meantime. If people !vote before this gets decided here I say we just leave well enough alone. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

O HAI[edit]

I was IRL busy - did I miss much? Guy (Help!) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Big drama was missed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
You could retroactively claim your absence as a dramatic resignation ;) Nosebagbear (talk)
I saw a bit of that on teh Facebooks, but I struggle to understand the full extent of it. Reading the page you link, my money is, as always, with Newyorkbrad, as reliably thoughtful and nuanced as ever. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Nah, just the usual. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Guy: Welcome back! Just more backlogs to get to.. RIP. –MJLTalk 01:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive errors on Denuvo wikipage[edit]

Content dispute, and the simple act of not approving of your edits isnt a conduct issue. Not all edits are acceptable, even if they are in good faith. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 26 July 2019 (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 user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lordtobi does not permit me to do changes on the above mentioned page. In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denuvo&action=history you can see that all my changes were of good faith. You can also see my contributions, I never do any vandalism or smth like that. So please can you somehow prevent Lordtobi from doing this? Thank you.

This is a content dispute, it does not belong here. Please discuss on the article talk page or WT:VG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 26 July 2019 (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 appreciate uninvolved admins help at WP:NPOVN[edit]

I started a post Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NAMBLA content on Harry Hay about NPOV concerns on Harry Hay. It’s a bit long with lots of repeated content but the proposed content section at the end has the sources included.

It was very helpful in dismissing some sources, and suggestions of better ones.

I’ve read every reliable source available and presented proposed content for inside the article—which in many ways contradicts what is in the lead and article presently—but it’s been crickets to get feedback or review for including it.

Personally I doubt any of it is weighty enough to be included in the lead; or that category pedophile advocacy is appropriate. I was hoping that would be the natural conclusion once others were able to see how little there is in reliable sources on this.

I ran across Wp:Bludgeon, and it recommend asking here for uninvolved help here. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Oversight permission restored to Beeblebrox[edit]

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) requested removal of their own advanced permissions on 28 June 2019. By Beeblebrox's request to this committee, their oversight permissions are restored, effective immediately. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK ■ 10:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Oversight permission restored to Beeblebrox

User:JoshuaIsTheFalco[edit]

User has a potted history with contributions including original research, synthesis, copyvios (on Commons), the addition of factually incorrect information [21] and straight forward vandalism [22]. Created a user page recently proclaiming he doesn't give a shit; added to it today with a pa on myself & Redrose. I don't care about the pa, I've had much worse, but it's just symptomatic of someone who is degenerating to WP:NOTHERE status. Nthep (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

User has now been notified of this discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
ec with you on that. Nthep (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

JoshuaistheFalco reply: You accuse me of being disruptive and potty. You and Redrose do not allow me to contribute or edit an article without it being called out. You accuse me of original research yet a news article is valid. You then say a potted history with disruptive behaviour. How about the anonymous editor who called Pelsall a town and it is not. Also you take photos down I contribute and yet any copyrighted photos are allowed like from Burslem station. I took that down as it was copyright. I create articles but of course others are then removing my edits.

Wiki is a one rule for admin and another for non admin. Tyranny imo.

JoshuaistheFalco reply finished: — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talkcontribs) 13:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, some of JoshuaistheFalco's recent edits are blatant vandalism (here and here, for example). Peacock (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I called them out for WP:SYNTH, among other things. They will take a local authority's feasibility study or long-term transport strategy plan and use it as a source for a claim that there is an actual ongoing project to reopen a long-closed railway line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay whatever I'm not bothered anymore. I really am not. I'm outraged by the whole admin can do what they want. Those little acts of vandalism was to see who the main admin are who keep bugging me. It was you two and a local authority strategy has more confirmation and know all than that of a blogger on a news website. You hate me its clear and I really don't care. Pick on me but leave everyone else alone.

Signed JoshuaistheFalco — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talkcontribs) 15:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

For the record I haven't called you potty. I didn't raise this report because of differences of opinion I have with you about WP:INDISCRIMINATE and MOS:IMAGELEAD. My concerns are over the recent edits to Pelsall and Brownhills in the face of sourced information and then descending into vandalism -"to see who the main admin are who keep bugging me" - isn't a justification or excuse. As for the image point, if that was you who removed the image from Burslem railway station then you're failing to recognize an image freely licenced by the copyright holder over copyright violation when images taken by others are uploaded with the uploader claiming them as their own work. Nthep (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Blocked them 24 hours for the vandalism. No objections if any other admin wants to extend the block or indef etc. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio revdel[edit]

[23]

If someone could revdel the old version, that would be peachy. Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb, I have tagged the with {{copyvio-revdel}}. --MrClog (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 05:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@MrClog: not really necessary, it wasn't really an urgent thing, but good to know there was a template for it. Although holy hell is it obtrusive. That should be a talk page template. @Enterprisey: thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb, "Although holy hell is it obtrusive. That should be a talk page template.". You are not entirely alone in that sentiment. See Template talk:Copyvio-revdel#A concern with Template:Copyvio-revdel. -- Begoon 09:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Tomb of Artaxerxes III[edit]

Hi, I created Tomb of Artaxerxes III, but User: ZxxZxxZ has been recorded instead???!!! M.k.m2003 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

M.k.m2003, they are recorded as the creator because they created it is a redirect. You simply converted it from a redirect to an article. In general, it doesn't really matter who created an article, so don't worry too much about it. StudiesWorld (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
StudiesWorld, OK. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

opposed[edit]

I'm opposed to User:Rosguill To Integration Tomb of Artaxerxes III with Persepolis!!!! . M.k.m2003 (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

What does this have to do with administrators? This sounds like a content dispute. If it is not a content dispute, note that you are required to notify the other party. The instructions at the top of this page tell you how to do this. --Yamla (talk) 22:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Yamla, I received notification through ping so I'd say there's no need for further notification in this case. That having been said, as you noted this is a content dispute, and not even one I was planning on actively pursuing, so there's really no need for this discussion. At most, there's a case for boomerang for mild edit warring, but 3RR hasn't been violated yet. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm Sorry for but I did not know what to do .Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

M.k.m2003, for now, there's nothing to do since I don't feel like getting in an edit war and will wait for another new page reviewer to take a look at Tomb of Artaxerxes III and either restore the merge or approve the article. If you'd like to write out arguments for why the article should be kept, you should do so at Talk:Tomb of Artaxerxes III. However, a more productive way to increase the chances of the article being accepted would be to provide additional citations to reliable sources containing significant coverage of the subject, thus demonstrating that the article meets notability guidelines and should be included in the encyclopedia.
For general instructions on how to handle content disputes, see WP:BRD. Bringing disputes to the administrators noticeboard is only for when users are violating policy or otherwise being problematically uncivil, neither of which are the case in this situation in my opinion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
More references? How about more text? M.K.m2003's "article" consisted of an infobox, a single sentence of text, 9 photographs and 1 reference. It seems to be essentially an excuse for a photo gallery. Unless it can be fleshed out into something at least the size of a sub-stub (it's pretty much a sub-sub-stub), I think the redirect is better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The redirect is much better as it places the tomb in its context. Having a separate article which barely qualifies as a stub does our readers a disservice at this time. The redirect gives readers the information they need, and we should be about our readers. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Liz reappointed full clerk[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Liz (talk · contribs) has been reappointed to the clerk team as a full clerk, effective immediately.

The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Liz reappointed full clerk

User:LordSwad[edit]

This account created in 2008 with no edits apparently exists solely for making content available in userspace that is not available in mainspace. -- GreenC 16:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a straightforward case for WP:MFD under WP:UP#COPIES or one of the policies directly after it (WP:STALEDRAFT, WP:FAKEARTICLE) - or even just blanking it and applying Template:Userpage blanked, as WP:FAKEARTICLE suggests when dealing with article-like user pages that haven't been edited in an extended period of time; deletion isn't strictly necessary in a case like this. I doubt anything else needs to be done given that the user in question only made two edits, both over ten years ago. --Aquillion (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I've nominated it at MfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • How about being neither amused nor saddened, but chalking it up to different people think differently? This is neither a big deal, nor is it in some way the big problems of Wikipedia writ small. It hardly merits a finger-wagging comment here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion query[edit]

List of CSD categories count

Possibly contested (8) ------------------

G1: Nonsense (0)
G2: Test pages (0)
G3: Vandalism (0)
G3: Hoaxes (0)
G4: Reposted (0)
G5: Violating block/ban (4) ------------------
G6: Housekeeping (110) ------------------
G7/U1: Author request (0)
G8: Dependent on non-existent (0)
G8: Broken redirects (0)
G10: Attack pages (0)
G11: Advertising (1) ------------------
G12/F9: Copyvios (0)
G13: Abandoned drafts or AfC submissions (3) ------------------
G14: Unnecessary disambiguation pages (0)
A1: No context (0)
A2: Foreign Wikiproject (0)
A3: No content (0)
A5: Transwikied (0)
A7/A9: Significance not indicated (0)
A10: Duplicate articles (1) ------------------
A11: Obviously invented (0)
C1: Empty categories (0)
F1: Redundant files (0)
F2: Missing/corrupt files (0)
F3: Unacceptably licensed files (0)
F5: Orphaned non-free use files (0)
F7: Clearly invalid fair-use files (0)
F10: Useless non-media files (0)
P2: Empty portals (0)
R2: Inappropriate cross-namespace redirects (0)
R3: Implausible redirects (0)
Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 175#Problem with CSD category counts, again and (as implied by the section name) many, many, many previous reports. —Cryptic 15:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I think this category-count issue needs to be explained in some prominent place like VPT's top header; it's been unreliable for well over a decade and will not likely be solved in the offing. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the WMF's developers aren't convinced this is an issue. Would suggest voicing your concerns at T221795. -FASTILY 23:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion query[edit]

List of CSD categories count

Possibly contested (8) ------------------

G1: Nonsense (0)
G2: Test pages (0)
G3: Vandalism (0)
G3: Hoaxes (0)
G4: Reposted (0)
G5: Violating block/ban (4) ------------------
G6: Housekeeping (110) ------------------
G7/U1: Author request (0)
G8: Dependent on non-existent (0)
G8: Broken redirects (0)
G10: Attack pages (0)
G11: Advertising (1) ------------------
G12/F9: Copyvios (0)
G13: Abandoned drafts or AfC submissions (3) ------------------
G14: Unnecessary disambiguation pages (0)
A1: No context (0)
A2: Foreign Wikiproject (0)
A3: No content (0)
A5: Transwikied (0)
A7/A9: Significance not indicated (0)
A10: Duplicate articles (1) ------------------
A11: Obviously invented (0)
C1: Empty categories (0)
F1: Redundant files (0)
F2: Missing/corrupt files (0)
F3: Unacceptably licensed files (0)
F5: Orphaned non-free use files (0)
F7: Clearly invalid fair-use files (0)
F10: Useless non-media files (0)
P2: Empty portals (0)
R2: Inappropriate cross-namespace redirects (0)
R3: Implausible redirects (0)
Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 175#Problem with CSD category counts, again and (as implied by the section name) many, many, many previous reports. —Cryptic 15:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I think this category-count issue needs to be explained in some prominent place like VPT's top header; it's been unreliable for well over a decade and will not likely be solved in the offing. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the WMF's developers aren't convinced this is an issue. Would suggest voicing your concerns at T221795. -FASTILY 23:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

New BAG nomination: Enterprisey[edit]

Hi! This is a notice that I have nominated myself for the Bot Approvals Group. I would appreciate your input. Thanks! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this AfD nom please?[edit]

Hi all. Could an uninvolved admin take a look at this afd please, I am not sure as to where the nominator is going, or is confused re the AfD process. It appears they want a move as opposed to deletion, looking at their talkpage they opened a section at the teahouse, to which the reply looks to have been missed by the OP. Thanks Nightfury 10:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

What an absolute mess. Here is what he wanted to do, but was advised against it: [24]. All of his contribs are regarding this article. He may even have a COI regarding the unrelated nonprofit of the same name. Softlavender (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible undisclosed paid editing[edit]

(non-admin closure) IP blocked by 331dot after energetically throwing themselves head-first in a PAID disclosure block Nosebagbear (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2019 (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.

Was wondering if an admin might take a look at Special:Contributions/86.182.213.38 since the IP may be involved in some undisclosed paid editing per this Teahouse discussion thread. Perhaps an admin help the IP sort through this and figure out a way to for the IP comply with WP:PAID. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I've blocked, since they state that they are paid but specifically refused to comply with WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you taking a look at this 331dot. — Marchjuly (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2019 (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.
May I also say the IP address is dynamic. The user can simply change IP by simply resetting their router. A rangeblock may be warranted. Nightfury 14:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Wufei05[edit]

(non-admin closure) Wufei05 indeffed by Someguy1221 for hostile attacks and doxxing threats Nosebagbear (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2019 (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 has repeatedly added irrelevant information to an article in an attempt to discredit a source they disagreed with. (See [25] [26] [27], along with the ongoing discussion regarding the issue.) User has also inserted inaccurate information into articles (See [28]), and has posted uncivil and hostile attacks on other users' talk pages. (See [29] [30]) -- 22:28, 31 July 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberlink420 (talkcontribs)

Indeffed. That behavior is obscene, and has no place here. I'll note that I looked into this user's history after I placed the indef, and this is not new behavior, just infrequent. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2019 (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.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 4[edit]

Nevermore. Mackensen (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The last quarter of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 March 4 is struck out. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

What does the raven say, high upon your chamber door? ;) ——SerialNumber54129 12:40, 1 August 2019 (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.

Move User:Rayeshman and subpages to User:Niyumard[edit]

Cleanup complete. — xaosflux Talk 14:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, when renaming User:Rayeshman to User:Niyumard (with usurpation), I forgot to suppress redirects when moving old User:Niyumard away (to User:Niyumard (usurped)), so I would like to request enwiki admins to move User:Rayeshman (and subpages, if any) to (or under) User:Niyumard. Thanks in advance, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Martin Urbanec: would you please clarify this more? Do you want to move User:Rayeshman (which has no subpages) to User:Niyumard, or move something to User:Niyumard (usurped), or what? I dont see an account or set of pages named User:Niyumard (with usurpation). Please use exact wikilinks to make it clear on accounts with spaces in the page names. — xaosflux Talk 14:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Xaosflux, they meant just moving Rayeshman to Niyumard, but for that redirect page Niyumard needs to be deleted first. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Doing...xaosflux Talk 14:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 Done if there is any thing else to this, let us know. — xaosflux Talk 14:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! --Martin Urbanec (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2019 (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.

Add maintenance template[edit]

Edit was made, phab task opened to make this easier in the future. Nothing more to do here. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2019 (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.


Please add {{R restricted}} Gadget:Invention, Travel, & Adventure, because editing this page is restricted to administrators. Monniasza talk 10:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not done @Monniasza: the gadget namespace is under construction and is currently locked from editing for all users, even admins. Once this is done you can requests edits on it's talk page. — xaosflux Talk 10:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Xaosflux - It is? How do you know this? Was this announced somewhere that I missed? ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, but visit the redirect Gadget:Invention, Travel, & Adventure and observe that it shows "View source" for admins and clicking View source shows "You do not have permission to edit pages in the Gadget namespace." Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Oshwah, it's for gadgets 2.0. Check [31]. As far as I know, no progress since long back. WBGconverse 12:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
This page was last edited on 25 February 2017, at 04:19 :) ——SerialNumber54129 12:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric - Oh, interesting... Thanks for the link. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I note that this is the fifth time since the namespace was introduced that an unsuccessful attempt was made to request an edit to it. (previously: User talk:MaxSem/Archives/August 2015#Gadget redirects, Talk:Gadget Invention, Travel, & Adventure#Edit request (October 2016), Gadget talk:Invention, Travel, & Adventure#Edit request (September 2017), and m:Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2019-04#Edits to gadget namespace (April 2019)). * Pppery * it has begun... 14:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Right now, the only group that can edit that namespace is WMF Staff, now please don't get all "superprotect" on us - nothing is really supposed to be in there and I'm confident that access will be added if this goes live. We could ask a staffer to delete that page I suppose. — xaosflux Talk 15:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps @Tgr (WMF):? — xaosflux Talk 15:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Pppery: I see you commented on this before - I think deletion is the best course of action here - as this page really shouldn't exist as a cross-namespace redirect. — xaosflux Talk 15:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
There was strong consensus against deleting the redirect in 2017. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Should I replace {{R from move}} with {{R restricted}}, or should both be there? Or should I delete it? --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tgr (WMF): just add {{R restricted}} please. Do you know if there are any blockers that would prevent getting this access to stewards and perhaps interface admins so we don't have to bug staff in the future? — xaosflux Talk 17:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. I can't think of any reason why that would be a problem. I don't know much about the Gadget 3.0 plans though. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, phab:T229735 opened to allow self-service in the future. — xaosflux Talk 18:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

User Hyde1979[edit]

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

The response since the last block has been to continue edit-warring [32] and use misleading edit summaries as before[33]. --Ronz (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Blocked indef. ST47 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2019 (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.

A very big misunderstanding by 2 editors who are teaming up on me[edit]

Zinzoo01 blocked -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2019 (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.

So I started to created a page for a well know brand I guess all of you guys and girls know about Xiaomi. So I was broising Xiaomi website and saw that it has many brands and all have wiki pages. Except one ROIDMI. SO I thought I should give a try to wikipeida. I started the draft. And within a day an editor came and put tag of undisclosed paid editng. Why a big company like XIaomi will pay me for creating their page. It is completely unbeliable. i just eant to edit on wikipedia and what i see here is unbelivable. So the one user was GSS who put the tag and other one was his friend YUnshui who said that their is a project on Freelancer.com realted to Xiaomi. So I opened the project but it didnt open because page didnt exist. But I didnt understand that anyone can create project on freelancer or other sites for fun and Then delete it. So it means these 2 will come to every page and give undisclosed paid editing tag. This is the funnest and childish thing I have seen. Please anyone experienced and mature person look here. No teenager reply here only 30+

You are not only violating WP:SOCK but also WP:3RR by constantly reverting my edits at Draft:ROIDMI. Can someone please take care of this SPI. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Blocked, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zinzoo01 -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2019 (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.

Uninvolved admin needed to close discussion regarding victim list in mass shooting article[edit]

There is currently an open discussion on the Virginia Beach shooting talk page about whether to include a victims list or not. Its been several weeks since the last reply. Could an uninvolved admin please close the discussion? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Have you listed the discussion at WP:ANRFC? That will get more attention. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Another editor listed it there a month ago. Bus stop (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC on the interpretation of WP:ARBPOL[edit]

Please see here and comment. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

USA Track and Field Outdoor Championships[edit]

Another editor renamed several pages related to the USA Outdoor Track and Field Championships (including the 2017-2019 editions). In discussion we determined to revert back to the traditional naming convention, however since the redirect is in place, as a lowly editor I am unable to delete the redirect article to replace it back with the correct name. So I guess we need admin assistance to do this. Trackinfo (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Trackinfo: You can place your request at WP:RM/TR, where someone with the right permissions can revert these moves. IffyChat -- 21:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

RM Backlog[edit]

WP:Requested moves has a fairly extensive backlog at the moment. WP:Move review could use some eyes too. Calidum 04:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

RM always has a backlog (or, it has historically.) I've been trying to get back into it more recently. I'll try to take a look. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Calidum 12:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I closed 4 easy ones. There are a lot I participated in, and a lot I won't touch due to controversy, but hopefully this helps. I'll try to look again later. Dicklyon (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Disposed of 4 more. This is not rocket science. If people like me will chip in on the easy ones, the harder ones are more likely to come to the attention of admins to work on. Dicklyon (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Done 7 more. Someone click the "Thank" button and maybe I'll do more. Dicklyon (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks. 7 more done, making 22 today. Enough for me. There are still lots to do. Dicklyon (talk) 05:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Please note that the now pretty old multi-RM on Talk:List of Presidents of the United States is now listed below the Backlog as "Malformed", since it had items that overlapped another multi-RM that closed and moved some already. I'm not sure what the best way to fix it is, but it should be fixed and closed, or just closed, please. Dicklyon (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This has been fixed. I was wrong about its maturity; not ready for closing just yet. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

resignation of RickInBaltimore[edit]

Effective immediately, RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs) has resigned from the Arbitration Committee. He has also relinquished the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The Committee sincerely thanks Rick for his service and wishes him well.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Katietalk 19:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#resignation of RickInBaltimore
Face-sad.svg ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 11:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

"Supermodel"[edit]

(non-admin closure) User directed to the correct place to discuss their concerns. Nothing else to do here. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 15:50, 8 August 2019 (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.

Labeling certain models as "supermodel" in their lead paragraphs has been in contention for quite a while now. I personally think they shouldn't be labeled as such even though their supermodel status are rock solid like Bundchen and Schiffer. Being a supermodel is not a job per se, you don't label someone a "superstar" or a "sex symbol" as form of identification in the lead paragraph. It will also lead to other models-of-the-moment to be labeled as "supermodel" based on an article here and there. Thoughts? Maxen Embry (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, discussion like that belongs to WP:BLPN or WP:VPM not here. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Maxen Embry (talk) 10:34, 6 August 2019 (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.

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What should we do to 2607:fb90::/32 (moved from VPPR)[edit]

Moved from WP:VPPR § What should we do to 2607:fb90::/32: Enterprisey (talk!) 08:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Original post, from 2600:1702:38D0:E70:B4CD:9550:507:3ED1: Whoa, this range is affecting billions of T-Mobile users. The block is too long, what should we do? Should we shorten it or extend it? Enterprisey (talk!) 08:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

It's globally locked by the stewards and with a block log like this, I doubt anyone will agree to locally unblock. DrKay (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Well no wonder it has a big block log; this is a /32 rangeblock, and according to mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6, this size is typically given to an ISP or large organization. Why would we want to rangeblock something as big as an ISP? You're naturally going to get a lot of vandalism out of an ISP. With IPv4s, we don't rangeblock entire elementary schools for routine vandalism (which this looks to be): we block individual addresses. This range has been used by a long-term vandal, but according to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal, this person has been investigated in real life. I don't see the need of continuing such a large rangeblock, especially since one recent block was self-contradictory: it prevented account creation despite saying "good-faith editors on this range are encouraged to get an account". Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Just as a note, we do block entire schools (and sometimes entire school districts) if there is persistent vandalism. Heck, sometimes they ask us to do it. Primefac (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
And's what worse is that they can't edit their talk pages! This is the worst thing I've ever seen! 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, one year doesn't mean anything! What'll happen next year and in 2021? Are there gonna be more vandalism?! I think we should extend the global block to six months or maybe extend the block further more? 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sigh. This is not new news, guys. It has been unblocked for a total of 4 days since April 2017. Before the most recent 3 month block, which was put on it after ~24 hours of it being unblocked, it had been blocked for ~2 years by Graham87. It was unblocked for 3 days in July, and instantly started causing disruption. I blocked it again for a year, because if you want to go back to 2016, it's been unblocked for all of ~2 weeks. The talk page revocation is because they abuse the talk page if it isn't set that way. The reason for the global block is because whenever we block it locally, they immediately go cross-wiki and start harassing people over it.
    ACC ignore is set because this is such a wide range that CU will not be useful to ACC and the majority of people requesting accounts on it will not be the LTA. All the IP users who as of 1 month ago think that this block that has been in place for 2 years is the worst thing on the planet, have never been able to edit consistently from this range, and that fact that they have access to other IP ranges now shows that if they want to edit from their T-Mobile mobile network, this block really will not impact them if they are good faith and want to create an account since they can create an account right now if they wanted to.
    I do not like range blocks of /32s and will very rarely make them, but we have a persistent cross-wiki LTA that abuses the entirety of this range and abuses user talks if TPA is enabled. This block very likely will be extended for another year by another admin come July 2020, but I set it to that length so we would have a chance to review when the time comes. If someone wants to make a special block template for this specific range I'd be fine with it to explain to any users what was going on, but if we unblock now or even shorten it, the disruption will immediately resume and we'd just have to block again with the same settings. I also suspect that whomever the IP that is complaining here is the same person behind IP that's been complaining about it for the last month, which means they have had ample opportunity to create an account and edit in good faith if they want to. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I found a template, Template:TMOblock. How about we change the reason to that? That's a good idea! 2600:1702:38D0:E70:B4CD:9550:507:3ED1 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Sure. I'll do that now. I just matched the last block settings which used {{rangeblock}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
        • We should also make an edit filter to prevent these kinds of blocks from happening again. 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Considering that many technically savvy admins are familiar with this range, I think that’s unlikely. If as I suspect you’ve been the same person complaining about this for a month, please stop. You can easily create an account right now and never have to worry about it again. The answer to “this range is very problematic and is unlikely to be unblocked for more than a few days at a time in the foreseeable future.” is not going to change just because you keep asking. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What to do... what to do[edit]

Is it a BLP violation for people’s financial details (excruciating might I add) to be posted when they’ve file for bankruptcy? Even if the source is “reliable” it seems invasive for this website. Trillfendi (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Depends what the source is. If it's a news article reporting that John Smith is in debt of $50million then it's probably fine; if it's intimate financial details taken from a primary source then it's not, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. PS queries like this are best placed at WP:BLPN. GiantSnowman 16:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
If this is brought to WP:BLPN the sources and well as the content they are being used to support will need to be identified to know whether or not the sources are reliable for the content in question.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Someone remind me why news reports are fine? This is an encyclopedia that relies on secondary sources, not primary sources like news reports. "What have historians written about X" is what matters. "Have historians who rely on the primary sources paid attention to the amount?" is the question to ask. And until those secondary sources write about the subject, don't include the content. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood, Nyttend. News reports are secondary sources, not primary. Primary source documents for financial data would be things like tax returns, bank statements, credit card statements, things like that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
AIUI, historians tend to refer to secondary sources as those removed almost-entirely from the event--i.e. some decades after the event in question. Such a definition as-used there rarely matches what we mean here, which is usually closer to the plain-English meaning of a secondary source. See also Secondary source. --Izno (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Please find me any professional historians who define a news report as secondary. Are contemporary news reports included in the literature review of a dissertation, or are they among the primary sources upon which the research is based? Once your theoretical approach is accepted by the American Historical Review or the Journal of American History or any journal of comparable quality in another country, Wikipedia needs to acknowledge it, but until then, it's a fringe theory. Until then, "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea", and treating sources contemporary with an event as secondary for that event is distinctly not broadly supported by scholarship in this field. Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipeda is not an academic publication. It is a popular encyclopedia, and it quite properly uses secondary sources as defined not by academics, but by the world in general. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Context, please? Sometimes the size of the bankruptcy or the impact on its victims makes it notable. Here's a thing on secondary sources: [34]. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Trillfendi, having seen your edit before the revdel, I would say that the fact of bankruptcy is definitely fair game, a general amount is probably okay (per GiantSnowman), much more specific than that (e.g. specific amounts of money owed, specific lenders involved) probably should stay off unless there is inherent notability in it. Off-the-top-of-head example: something like "$2 million of John Doe's debts were from loans used to start his company XYZCorp" might be notable (especially if XYZCorp has a page or its failure received significant WP:RS coverage), whereas "Jane Doe owed $500K in unpaid credit cards" doesn't seem like it would be notable enough to win the notability-privacy tradeoff. creffett (talk) 03:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

An admin who sometimes refuses to communicate[edit]

There's one admin, who performs a very large number of speedy deletions but who doesn't always respond when users come with questions following up on these deletions. I remember there were several occasions when I've asked him to restore drafts he'd deleted per G13, and these requests have always been ignored. In the current version of their talk page I see seven deletion-related queries, and three of them have been left unanswered. Is this acceptable? I did bring it up with him [35], but I might have been too brusque, I guess, so he's taken offence and asked me to stay off his talk page. Could somebody else have a look? It might be that I'm overblowing it and that he's got good reasons for not replying to me or to the others. But if not, then maybe somebody could explain to him the expectation of accountability in a way that he will find acceptable? Thanks! – Uanfala (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Meh. They use the d-batch, which is why every single user page deletion is, e. g., U5. Incidentally, Uanfala, have you not informed them of this discussion? ——SerialNumber54129 12:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes, I had missed the editnotice: I had half expected I'd just be told everything's fine and there'd be no need for drama, but in hindsight, of course that's the sensible thing to do: I've informed them just now. – Uanfala (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Uanfala, I have had a look here, and I'm less than impressed with your behavior. Your initial discussion with Fastily, regarding concerns over G13 deletions, was fine, and Fastily explained to you how those deletions were actually done. But not long after that, you made this edit, explicitly noting you were deliberately disregarding the instructions to make the request elsewhere: [36]. You then proceeded to, without any evidence shown, accuse Fastily of lying in the earlier conversation, and then requesting the reinstatement of several other articles which could have just as easily been requested at WP:REFUND, which was set up for the specific purpose of requesting such undeletions. Finally, Fastily asked you to stay off their talk page (reasonable enough, after what you'd been doing), and you ignored that to make yet another accusation of bad faith. Fastily is not violating admin accountability; it is clear why the articles were deleted (they were abandoned drafts), and if you want to challenge that, you are provided a way to do so. You're reaching the point of hounding. If Fastily doesn't want to fulfill those requests personally, go ask at REFUND and stop poking Fastily just to be disruptive. I'm half inclined to see a boomerang in the air here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
When you read previous discussions such as this and this it certainly puts things into perspective, Also worth noting you've made over 28 edits to his page in a year which all consists of requesting undeletion ..... Has it not occurred to you you can simply ask at REFUND instead of bugging an admin every day of the week?,
I myself have requested draft undeletions but these have always been at REFUND as I never want to pester someone over it (and plus 9/10 it's quicker).
I'm not seeing any admin intervention needed and I'm not seeing anything wrong with Fastilys interaction with you. –Davey2010Talk 19:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think this is relevant here, but of the 28 edits you link to, only five are requests for undeletion. – Uanfala (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Struck as you are indeed corrent, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 11:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure that moving forward, Uanfala will leave Fastily alone and follow instructions. One question though? Did Uanfala go on to improve said articles or will we be G13ing them in 6 months, again? My point being, what is the point of undeleting G13's if not to bring them up to article status? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
So far as I can tell, exactly once from the requests made to Fastily, specifically Type theory with records. Looks like the rest Uanfala never even touched, and on one occasion seemed to want a page undeleted simply to see what it contained. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, in the links above what I see is Fastily making statements that are incompatible with the observed reality, but if what other people see instead is me making baseless accusations, fine; this is not relevant here anyway. And again, I wouldn't mind it if aspects of my past behaviour is examined in greater detail. However, I really can't say I'm satisfied with the way the question of what tone I used on that occasion last year, or what I've done to the six or so drafts I've had restored since then, has been completely substituted for the issue of a potentially problematic long-term behavioural pattern of an active admin. – Uanfala (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that I approached last year's interaction with Fastily in the worst way possible. I shouldn't have made any accusations, regardless of the perceived merits of the situation. And yes, I normally ask the deleting admin if I want a page restored, even for drafts: as I understand it, REFUND isn't obligatory, it's there for convenience because undeletion of G13'ed drafts is entirely uncontroversial, not because it's a bad idea to ask the admin. And I've thought it's generally a good idea for an admin to have an idea of how many of their deleted pages get restored. Now, if people would like to examine my behaviour here, then by all means go ahead. But couldn't we at least get an opinion on the matter that I brought up in the first place? If Fastily hasn't respond to my queries because I'm apparently annoying, then fine. But that's not about me, almost half of the people who approach him with questions regarding his deletions have been ignored. Is that acceptable? If it is, then I would appreciate it if I'm told so, so that I could adjust my expectations accordingly. Thanks. – Uanfala (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that I approached last year's interaction with Fastily in the worst way possible. I shouldn't have made any accusations, regardless of the perceived merits of the situation.
Oh really? If you had thought about that before hounding and accusing me of bad faith, then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.
I normally ask the deleting admin if I want a page restored, even for drafts: as I understand it, REFUND isn't obligatory
My edit notice points users to WP:REFUND because a) they'll receive faster service, and b) I perform many deletions, and strongly prefer that they are peer-reviewed. I am happy to service polite requests, but that meaning is clearly lost on you.
If Fastily hasn't respond to my queries because I'm apparently annoying, then fine.
"annoying" is a mischaracterization. The term you're looking for is "rude".
But that's not about me, almost half of the people who approach him with questions regarding his deletions have been ignored.
Um, half? Diffs please, or retract your statement. For the few I do ignore: arguing with paid/COI editors is almost always a waste of time. I prioritize my time to help editors that genuinely need it. -FASTILY 23:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
This was in reference to what I wrote as the beginning of this thread: in the version of your talk page at the time, there were seven users other than myself who ask about deletions you've performed, and three of them don't appear to have received an answer. Of course I don't know the particulars: at the very least I can't see the content of the pages in question. Also, that's not a big sample at all, but as far as I remember, unanswered questions are a familiar sight on your talk page. Of course, it could be that all these users are obvious NOTHERE's, but my impression was that even then it's best to give them an explanation, even if a short one, so that they can see what they're getting wrong and go away instead of potentially making the same mistakes again). – Uanfala (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more specific. The three unanswered queries on your talk page are:
  • [37]: the page at the time of deletion looked like this: it had been tagged for G11, and you had deleted it as U5, both were clearly mistakes. The user recreated their page shortly after, so I it might be that you haven't felt the need to take any further action (although given how understandably frustrated they were, something as simple as "Ooops, my bad!" would have gone a long way). You did eventually restore the page, a few hours ago [38].
  • [39]. A user page deleted as U5. I can't see its contents.
  • [40] The pages deleted were a user page and a sandbox, both as U5. I can't see the deleted revisions. The latter page was later recreated as a draft article. – Uanfala (talk) 10:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Request to override Global range block[edit]

I was suggested to make this request here

The ip range 151.48.0.0/17 was globally blocked by a steward because a user from this ip range used it to create several fake accounts and spam messages accross wikipedia

Anachronist who is a sysop changed the local settings for en.wikipedia.org to give the possibility to create accounts from this ip range

But there must be a glitch or a bug because if i try creating an account from the blocked ip range the same error message appears

'Editing from your IP address range (151.48.0.0/17) has been blocked (disabled) on all Wikimedia wikis until 19:38, 13 December 2019 by Masti (meta.wikimedia.org) for the following reason:

Cross-wiki spam: spambot

This block began on 19:38, 13 June 2019'

I would like someone to fix this error please

It is stange that a global block can not be overridden by local settings because this is what normally happens

Anyway if the cause of the block was an abuser who created too many accounts to spam messages i wonder why it was not chosen the most logical solution that is keeping the creation of accounts blocked and letting edits from normal ip addresses unblocked but exactly the opposite

Semplicemente Agghiacciante Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

A global block can be overridden by normal settings, but it has not been in this case. See Special:Contributions/151.48.0.0/17. The block is not locally disabled, and placing a new local block is not sufficient to do that. Neither the global block nor the local block is currently marked as Account Creation Blocked. That said, you clearly aready have an account, so why do you need to create more? We would need some justification to release the spambot block, and "I want to create more spambots" isn't very convincing. ST47 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
As we noted at VPT, this is not a glitch or bug it is working correctly. Also, it does not appear you have contacted @Anachronist: as required for this discussion, I've done that for you. If Anachronist means to override the global block, they certainly can. If not, we'd need a reasonable argument for someone else to do so. — xaosflux Talk 15:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: The history of this started with a query to OTRS, in which this editor could not edit as an IP address or create an account because of the global block. There was no disagreement that the block was necessary. I encouraged the person to try to create an account from an IP address outside, and that was successful. At the time I thought it unusual to block account creation for a spambot, so I set up a local block on the same IP range with IP editing still blocked but account creation not disabled. When that didn't allow for accounts to be created, it became a technical question about whether local settings override global settings, so I encouraged the editor to ask about it over at village pump. Evidently I can't override the "account creation" flag if it's blocked globally. I consider the matter closed. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Anachronist: if you think it's appropriate you can override the global block at Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist - is that still preventing account creation here after you do it? — xaosflux Talk 19:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I was unaware of that whitelist. Thanks, I'll remember that in the future. I'm sure that will work, although now that I know the global blocking of account creation was deliberate due to the spambot being involved in actually creating accounts, I'm reluctant to whitelist the range for the account creation function. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

There is one thing i would like to specify

My very first request was not about account creation but about normal editing from ip

Anachronist accorded very gently the possibility to create an account from the globally blocked ip range but this did not work so i had to create an account from another ip and asked him to fix this technical issue about account creations

But i kept saying that in my opinion allowing account creation for an ip range that was used by an abuser to spam accounts was not the most correct solution which instead would be disallowing account creation and allowing editing from ip

I do concur with all of you when you say that asking to allow users to create accounts from this ip range is not reasonable and if i requested it was just because allowing account creation was the concession i had from Anachronist

Now that the full story was cleared up i would like to go back to my initial request and ask for unblocking this ip range in en.wikipedia.org only for anonymous users while keeping blocked the possibility to create accounts

In this way the abuser will still be prevented from spamming new accounts but nomal users will be free to contribute again and it will be even easier controlling their contributions and possible abuses by watching the ip range 151.48.0.0/17

Semplicemente Agghiacciante Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

All global blocks disable account creation by default, and there is unfortunately no way for us to change that when making the block. If this is impacting multiple people here, then I would recommend whitelisting the block locally and then issuing a local block with more appropriate settings. I'll look and see if that global block is still necessary. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ajraddatz

Semplicemente Agghiacciante Semplicemente Agghiacciante (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT backlogged[edit]

Interested editors may like noted that CAT:WSA is backlogged with ~30 users seeking adoption (including the user who filed the above report). If more experienced users and admins could add themselves to the list of potential adopters and ensure the page is updated, it'd go a long way with sharing institutional knowledge about Wikipedia and promoting editor retention. Cheers! –MJLTalk 20:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Close review - Village Pump discussion on spelling of category names[edit]

There seems to be a consensus on a number of points here:
  • There is consensus that the closure by User:Cinderella157 was unclear, didn't adequately summarize the discussion, and didn't attempt to take the allegations of votestacking into consideration.
  • There is consensus that, at the time that Cinderella157 closed the RfC, there was no clear consensus to be found in the RfC discussion.
  • There is consensus that the notification of select Wikiprojects by User:Number 57 prompted participation by a disproportionately biased set of editors. However, there isn't strong consensus on whether Number 57 acted in bad faith when he notified these Wikiprojects. In the end, it can't be denied that these notifications introduced a bias in the editors that participated in the RfC. As an illustration, imagine you're hosting a vote on the question: "should peanuts be banned from airplanes?" At first, you have a set of 1000 random people that are asked to vote, and the results are not in favor of banning peanuts. But then, someone invites 1000 additional people (all of whom have a severe peanut allergy) to the vote because they are the people that are "most affected" by it. The results of the vote will obviously change, because the participants have become biased.
There doesn't, however, seem to be a consensus on what to do about the RfC. Overturning the RfC by rolling the clock back to before the Wikiprojects were notified does not seem to be an agreeable solution. There's certainly no consensus on changing the end result of the otherwise insufficient closure. My advice (and to be clear, this last part is not intended to be an interpretation of the consensus of this review) would be to consider the RfC closed as no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Re-run the RfC again, advertise it widely throughout WP (but in a neutral way that doesn't disproportionately notify a biased audience), and see if a proper consensus can be found. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 06:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have not been involved in this issue, other than responding to the RFC. I rarely touch categories, and I don't much care what the final outcome is here. However I strongly object to canvassing, and I very much dislike bad closures.

Grounds for overturn:

  • A closer's job is to assess community