Greenbay1313 (talk | contribs) →Eyes Needed: new section |
|||
Line 339: | Line 339: | ||
::{{ec}}What HJ said. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
::{{ec}}What HJ said. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::Done. Anyone up for providing advice on the competence issues? [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 18:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
:::Done. Anyone up for providing advice on the competence issues? [[User:Moreschi|Moreschi]] ([[User talk:Moreschi|talk]]) 18:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Eyes Needed == |
|||
BLP violations on locked page. [[Ronn Torossian]]--[[User:Greenbay1313|greenbay1313]] ([[User talk:Greenbay1313|talk]]) 18:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:23, 31 March 2011
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Researchers requesting administrators’ advices to launch a study
Hello all!
We bring together the forces of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University and Sciences Po Paris to conduct a large-scale research project on the microfoundations and dynamics of online interactions and behavior. To this end, we invite internet users with many different profiles to fill out a survey on LimeSurvey which combines decision making involving money with substantive questions about attitudes and practices. As a part of our research agenda, we would like to achieve the highest answer rate possible among Wikipedia contributors.
For this purpose, we presented our research goals and methods to the WMF which agreed to support our project and help diffusing our call to participate among Wikipedians (to make sure, please check out the list of research projects which have the Foundation’s recognition or contact Steven Walling). We planned to invite Wikipedians to participate in this broad study by posting individual invitations on the users’ talk pages through an automated procedure.
So this message is both to let the community of admins know about what we intend to do (as our aim is surely neither to bother people nor to disrupt the editing process of Wikipedia!) and to ask for some clarifications and advices about some particular aspects of our invitation protocol, namely:
- Is there a risk that our account could be blocked while we are in the process of sending our invitations to participate and, if yes, how could we avoid that?
- Is there a risk that the external link to the study that we will include in our invitation messages could be blocked and, if yes, how could we avoid that?
At the end of the study, research outputs will be made available under an open access license and we intend to share them at a Wikimania conference. If they wish to do so, participants from Wikipedia have the possibility to donate their final earnings from the study to the Wikimedia Foundation.
We remain at your entire disposal for any further question or precision about this research project (if you like, please consider that you can also reach us by e-mail at: berkman_harvard@sciences-po.fr).
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Many thanks,
The Harvard / Sciences Po research team. SalimJah (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi SalimJah, I'm from the Wikipedia Bot Approvals Group. The correct place to get approval for mass message delivery using an automated process is WP:BRFA. Alternatively, you can look at getting a bot which already has broad approval for message delivery, such as User:MessageDeliveryBot, to do the job for you. Getting an approval like this reduces the risk of the bot or link getting blocked, if you use a bot without approval it will be blocked as soon as possible, for violating the bot policy. However, users often object to mass messaging which they have not specifically opted in for, as many consider it spam. An alternative would be to use a watchlist notice, or one of the other three site notices explained at the top of this page. Using this method would completely remove the risk of the link being blacklisted or the bot being blocked, as it would not be editing repeatedly. Hope that helps, feel free to contact me or any other BAG ember if you have further questions. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Can you please provide more details about how you will be contacting people? (ie, the exact text of the message and which groups of editors you will be sending it to). As this is a WMF-endorsed study I don't see any generic problems, but you obviously need to make sure that your approach is appropriate (and posting this message here is a great way to start things off). One problem I see with your current approach is that posting access codes in publicly-viewable user talk pages will mean that these codes a) won't be private and b) are very likely to be used by people other than the intended editor in some cases. This will obviously impact on the quality of your data and may cause some privacy problems. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Kingpin13 and Nick-D for your precious input and advices!
- We are currently in the process of technically validating a bot that will have two specific purposes: (a) posting our invitation to participate in the talk page of several thousands of Wikipedia registered users (according to the number of Wikipedia participants that we will be able to fund) and (b) retrieving automatically participants' agreement to participate (we intend to ask participants to confirm their agreement to participate on their talk page as an answer to our invitation before they actually participate). I hope that this solves the privacy problem mentioned by Nick-D. Then, the text of the invitation will be almost the same as in our research description page on meta (i.e. a brief description of the goal of the study and how to participate in it). This research project is a large scale one that aims at understanding the dynamics of online interactions and behavior. So we intend to send our invitations to participate to all kinds of Wikipedia contributors, not restricting ourselves to one particular profile or group.
- About the issue of having our bot or account blocked while we are in the process of sending the invitations, I thought of asking Steven Walling to leave a note on my talk page in order to "whitelist" me and link to our research project page on meta. Would this prevent efficiently the risk of being blocked while sending the invitations? Do we still have to go through the whole bot validation process if we do that? I must confess that we would like to move fast and open the survey for Wikipedians to participate as soon as possible.
- Thanks again for your helpful guidance! SalimJah (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- The text at m:Dynamics of Online Interactions and Behavior is around 3700 bytes (after deleting the misguided <br /> html). My guess (I am not an admin) is that anyone delivering that page to thousands of users would be blocked (or is there some benefit to the encyclopedia that I have overlooked?). Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not unless you consider the evocation of thousands of orange banners a benefit. No talkpage spam, please. Bishonen | talk 04:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC).
- I second that, I'm sure interested people and pretty much everybody reads this board anyway,
amongespecially admins. At most, if one really wants to reach thousand of admins, a feature in the Signpost (if its editor think it's a good idea) might be a less intrusive way of reaching out to a wider audience without spamming templates to everybody. Snowolf How can I help? 06:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)- Dear all, thanks for sharing your concerns with us. Our research project aims at making a significant contribution to the field of human interaction systems design in order to inform the design and organization of online social spaces (if you like, please visit the webpage dedicated to this research project). We expect that current and future Wikimedia community projects could benefit a lot from the insight of such research, which is precisely why we will make it available under and open access licence and intend to share it at a Wikimania conference. Another benefit to the community is that all Wikipedia participants are given the opportunity to donate their final earnings from the study to the Wikimedia Foundation (each participant can earn as much as $50 upon completion of the survey).
- From our side, we consider it important to get Wikipedia users to answer our survey, as the Wikipedia project has grown to achieve a prominent status on the internet. For validity concerns, we do not want to invite only admins to participate. We would like to be able to invite all types of Wikipedia contributors equally, ranging from the admin to the contributor who has just registered his Wikipedia account. So one reason why we finally opted for the talk page option is that this is the most widely shared discussion medium across all types of Wikipedia contributors and the only one available for recently registered users. We totally understand that this may appear intrusive to some. We are trying to figure out the best way to make our recruitment process valid and return our results to the community while not disrupting its editing process. Posting an invitation to participate in a research project on the user talk pages has already been done before. In response to this trend (and maybe because some researchers may sometimes not invest a sufficient amount of time trying to understand and abide by community guidelines and principles in their recruitment processes), the Wikimedia Research Committee and the Subject Recruitment Approvals Group are currently trying to come up with a formal procedure and define best practices for researchers willing to recruit subjects from Wikimedia projects. While this is still work in progress, we totally committed ourselves to respecting them all and are happy to do so. Regards, SalimJah (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dear all, thanks for sharing your concerns with us. Our research project aims at making a significant contribution to the field of human interaction systems design in order to inform the design and organization of online social spaces (if you like, please visit the webpage dedicated to this research project). We expect that current and future Wikimedia community projects could benefit a lot from the insight of such research, which is precisely why we will make it available under and open access licence and intend to share it at a Wikimania conference. Another benefit to the community is that all Wikipedia participants are given the opportunity to donate their final earnings from the study to the Wikimedia Foundation (each participant can earn as much as $50 upon completion of the survey).
- I second that, I'm sure interested people and pretty much everybody reads this board anyway,
- Not unless you consider the evocation of thousands of orange banners a benefit. No talkpage spam, please. Bishonen | talk 04:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC).
- The text at m:Dynamics of Online Interactions and Behavior is around 3700 bytes (after deleting the misguided <br /> html). My guess (I am not an admin) is that anyone delivering that page to thousands of users would be blocked (or is there some benefit to the encyclopedia that I have overlooked?). Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you very much Kingpin13 and Nick-D for your precious input and advices!
Well unless someone has a way that can achieve the same result as asking lots of editors directly (watchlist notice wouldn't), I think we (/BRFA) should approve either a new bot or an existing bot to deliver this one-off request. Rd232 talk 15:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'd suggest an existing bot, as that would also bring an experienced bot op into the discussion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Rd232 and UltraExactZZ for your comments! So to be very specific and totally transparent about how our invitation protocol is planned to work so far:
- We intend to use a Firefox plugin to post our invitation to participate on the Wikipedia talk pages. This plugin simply opens the talk pages that we would like to reach in turn (for instance in my case: ), posts our invitation on it and simulates a click on the “Save page” button. As this is not a web service, I’m not sure it can be turned into a regular Wikipedia bot.
- Then, we wrote up a crawl in Python that has two purposes. First, it collects the agreements to participate in the study that participants will post on their talk page (see Nick-D’s privacy concerns above). In case we did not reach a sufficient number of participants after a first experimentation round and are able to fund more Wikipedians to participate, we would like to be able to open the survey again for a second round (in any case we will not do more than two rounds in order not to be too intrusive!). So upon reception of the first invitation, Wikipedians have the option to opt-out of potentially receiving a second one (according to the Wikimedia Research Committee’s proposed guidelines on how to handle the subjects recruitment process). So the second purpose of our crawl is to collect the list of those Wikipedians who explicitly opted-out of receiving a second invitation message. If this is deemed useful by the community, we would be very happy to provide the source code of this crawl (maybe this could benefit the Subject Recruitment Approvals Group in his current effort trying to define formal procedures for researchers willing to recruit subjects from Wikimedia projects).
- Alternatively, I guess that functionality 1 above could also be fulfilled by using the MessageDeliveryBot, as suggested by Kingpin13. However, I wonder whether this bot would be suited for posting a very high number of invitations. First, it would require some tedious manual checking work from community members on an issue not directly related to Wikipedia’s editing process. Then, according to the edit rate indicated on the bot’s user page, it could take several days to complete the invitation process while we intend to open the survey for Wikipedians to participate for about a week. I also wonder whether some overload problems could arise. But we remain totally open to this possibility if the community thinks that this option could work well!
- For organization purposes, we would really like to be able to open the survey for Wikipedians to participate as soon as possible, ideally in the course of next week. I hope this is feasible from the community’s side. Best regards, SalimJah (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- If you think that with the edit rate of message delivery bot (10 epm) it will take several days, exactly how many invites do you plan on sending out? Yoenit (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I have a privacy concern to raise; as you appear to be proposing to give unique codes to users who will participate this will allow you to link user accounts to IP addresses (when they come to fill out your survey). Have you got an agreement with the WMF regarding how you will store or user this information (if at all). In addition do you have a) a privacy policy and b) clear explanation to users of the fact you will be exposed to their IP address directly? Apologies if I missed any of this in the above :) --Errant (chat!) 08:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Rd232 and UltraExactZZ for your comments! So to be very specific and totally transparent about how our invitation protocol is planned to work so far:
- Responding to Yoenit’s question: our prior experience at online based surveys indicates that response rates tend to be very low (roughly about 1%). While we could expect this answer rate to be higher for some profiles of Wikipedia contributors (namely the most experimented ones), the answer rate could well be below this number for newly registered users. There are about 60 000 newly registered accounts on Wikipedia each month. So if we want to achieve both validity (i.e. a representative coverage of all Wikipedia contributors’ profiles) and statistical power, we will have to contact many of those users. I think that all in all, contacting about 40 000 users would do the trick (which would take about 3 days for MessageDeliveryBot to do). I know that this is asking a lot from the community’s side. But I sincerely think that the benefits from this large scale research program in terms of practical lessons could be worth it. I see this being especially true according to the current debate about how should the community address the issue of the declining trend in newbies’ editing behavior, an issue that WMF Executive Director Sue Gardner considers to be the top priority one to solve for the community in her march communication. Note that this is precisely one of the reasons why the WMF accepted to support our project and help diffusing our call to participate among Wikipedians.
- Responding to Errant’s question: yes, this is a totally relevant issue! Thanks for asking! :) Our survey is based on the open-source survey tool LimeSurvey. LimeSurvey generally records participants’ IP address when they login. However, this is part of our privacy policy not to record or use participants’ IP addresses. So what we do is that when participants click on the link to the study, they are directed towards a proxy that redirects them to the survey. This way, each time a participant is loggin in, we do not store his IP address but the proxy’s one. More generally, our research procedures are subject to European privacy protection protocols, under the supervision of the European Research Council and the French ethics committee (CNIL). This entails notably that (a) all the data collected in this study will be used for research purposes only and (b) individual answers won’t be made public. Regards, SalimJah (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I clarify a few things:
- You want 40,000 people to take the survey—do you want Wikipedia readers without accounts, Wikipedia readers with accounts, Wikipedia readers and active editors with accounts, etc., or all of them? Because there is no way you will be able to get 40,000 actively editing (experienced) Wikipedians (I doubt there are even close to that many) unless you want to conduct this survey across different language versions of Wikipedia as well. So if you want users who don't edit much, I don't expect that posting on their talk pages will be useful at all if they don't check them. So that leads to question two:
- Are you saying that every survey-taker has to have their own unique access code? If so, this is to me the biggest obstacle. Firstly, how will Wikipedians be given access codes—on their talk page, via email, through a separate site? If it's on the talk page, anyone could use someone else's access code. If there is any way that the survey could be done without the need for special access codes, it would be simple to set up a sitenotice (a banner at the top) and/or a watchlist notice that invites users to participate. I believe this could be adjusted to show only for logged-in users, logged-out users, or both, as well. It would be the least intrusive method, IMO, and reach a broader audience.
Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I cannot speak for the other people that would get this message, but if I were to get what is essentially a spam message on my talk page I would be extremely upset, both with the people that placed it there, and in the event that it was sanctioned by the WMF, with the WMF as well. Quite simply, mass mailings are unacceptable. Every automated message bot on Wikipedia either a) delivers newsletters/periodical messages which are signed up for in advance by the recipients and are only delivered to those that signed up, or b) delivers messages informing editors that they have made a mistake or broken a policy and asking those editors to fix that mistake. Wikipedians, like most normal people, have historically shown a low opinion of unsolicited mass mailings. There must be another way to do this that would be less problematic. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dear Fetchcomm and Sven, I have the feeling that the answers to (at least some) of your questions can be found in the above, but I can try and make it clearer! :) We are only interested in Wikipedia registered users (the majority of those who participate in its editing process). Although we have the means to fund many Wikipedians to participate and are happy to give them the possibility to donate their final earnings to the WMF (which we see as a means to contribute to the Wikipedia fundraiser), our financial means are not unlimited. So, as noted above by Rd232, the reason why we have to invite individual editors directly and not all registered ones through a watchlist notice or a sitenotice is that if we did the latter, we could well end up with a sample that is not at all representative of the many profiles of contributors that can be found on Wikipedia. If this was to happen (and statistically it can!), this would significantly alter the validity of our results and thus make them unusable by the community. What we do is that we invite a subsample of Wikipedians to participate according to the answer rate that we expect given their contribution profile. Among them, we are obviously interested in getting many admins and experienced contributors to participate (and I sure hope that as many as possible will!). But we also want to reach a significant number of newbies, because those are very important both for the success of the community itself and in terms of the practical lessons that we will be able to draw from their participation in terms of how to enhance the design of online social spaces. So among the 40 000 users or so that we will invite, many will be newly registered users, specifically because we expect their answer rate to be very low (our response rate estimations are based on previous surveys conveyed to Wikipedians which used similar subject recruitment methods as the one we designed, but I would be delighted to have you all prove those statistics wrong! ;) ). The survey in itself is fun and entertaining, so I think those who will see the invitation and decide to participate will definitely like it!
- Fetchcomm, the access code privacy concerns that you raise are very similar to those raised above by Nick-D. We will indeed provide the access codes directly on the invitation messages. However, the privacy protocol we subject our research procedures to demand that we ask participants to confirm their agreement to participate in the survey before they actually participate. A consequence of this is that the wiki-signature that goes along with the agreement post will uniquely identify participants, thus preventing any user to use someone else's access code.
- Again, we totally understand that some may consider that receiving an invitation message directly on their talk page is intrusive. But I don’t see another means to do it in a valid way. We are not inventing anything new here, as subject recruitment for research purposes in Wikipedia is a relatively common practice. If anything, the novelty is that we deeply try to make our subject recruitment process valid while respecting our community commitment (please check here, here and here for more on how our recruitment process respects community principles). Then, one also has to take into consideration the benefits that such research can provide to the community, both in terms of practical lessons for enhancing its organization and efficiency, and in terms of the visibility that such research generally provides to the Wikipedia project at large. We do not only conduct this study with Wikipedians (as I said, it is a very large scale research agenda), but we really consider it important to have Wikipedians as a part of it, as the Wikipedia project has grown to achieve such a prominent status on the internet. Receiving an invitation to participate in your talk page may happen. If you don’t like it, you will never hear from us again (unless when we will present our results to the community!). So this will be the only cost you’ll bear for making this research possible.
- We are currently facing very stringent schedule constraints, so if it is ok with the community, we will try to open the survey for Wikipedians to participate in the course of next week. Best regards, SalimJah (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
RM closure requested
The move discussion at Talk:Occupation of the Baltic states has gone stale. A heavily involved editor attempted to close debate, but I undid this, as it was a violation of WP:RM/CI. However, I do believe that this discussion has run its course. As such, I kindly request that an admin put this debate properly to rest. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
And while I am here, I would also like to request that an admin merge the page histories of Talk:Székely and Talk:Székelys, as these histories have become rather messed up as a result of overzealous cut-and-paste moves. Thank you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- And while you are doing this I also request undoing a salted controversial move of Template:Occupation of the Baltic states sidebar, and warn Martintg not to do this again. I believe that he was already warned not to salt controversial moves and deserve a harsher sanction, but I am too busy to search through history of his talk page. (Igny (talk))
Community ban request: User:Δδ (91.155.234.89)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Δδ (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia per the consensus reached here. He may appeal to either the Arbitration Committee or the community, though he is advised to follow the standard offer first. --Dylan620 (t • c) 02:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Related threads: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive682#User 91.155.234.89 making allegations of 'criminal deeds'
Read the thread linked above, which describes the behavior of this user in a nutshell. In the few days since then, 91.155.234.89 has had his block upped to a month (for threats to evade block and personal attacks comparing users to Neo-Nazis on its talk page), had his talk page both semi'd and revoked, and five times evaded his block with these socks, in the following order:
- Δδ (talk · contribs) (Hence the name of the thread)
- BackInDisguise (talk · contribs)
- RelevantQuestions (talk · contribs)
- StopCharacterAssassination (talk · contribs)
- StopCharacterAssault (talk · contribs)
Since it seems overwhelmingly obvious this user isn't going to go away short of the nuclear option, I am suggesting we community-ban this user. None of the edits he's made under his socks have been constructive, and Relevant's, Assassination's, and Assault's edits have all been attacks on users who I believe opposed them in the underlying content dispute prior to the block on the IP. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 12:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, obviously. We may also want to mail the CUs to investigate the possibility of a rangeblock on the underlying IPs (don't know if it's possible?)>. 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. He often repeats his responses when making an unblock request. I'm not convinced of possible reform. --Eaglestorm (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. This user is seriously disturbed. The socks keep on coming (Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 91.155.234.89 contains the ones I know of), so a rangeblock would be most welcome. Favonian (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment – The user is abusing open proxies, so obviously rangeblocks are not possible. –MuZemike 16:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment There seem to be strong grounds to suspect that the user may be Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde herself. Since the problem seems to have started with the article, and her notability is somewhat questionable, I wonder whether deleting it might solve the problem? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment On the bright side, every time they show up again the proxy they use gets blocked for a minimum of a year because it's a proxy. This dope only appears to have three or four targets; why not honeypot him? It'll be that many fewer proxies for others to use... HalfShadow 21:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support Proxy abusers are, unfortunately, some of the worst. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This user is also causing a huge disruption on Finnish Wikipedia around the Finnish version of the article there. (Translated page)- LuckyLouie (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Should someone let them know what's going on here? —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Anyone here fluent in Finnish? Certainly'd make things easier for everyone. HalfShadow 02:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- To summarize: What this same user seems to be largely doing on fi.wp is extensive edit warring to include questionably sourced statements to the article fi:Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde, as well as various quite hostile responses to people who've reverted the edits. Some of it may be due to a genuine misunderstanding of WP's principles and guidelines, though. The IP was previously blocked there for a few days for edit warring but not currently. --KFP (contact | edits) 18:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Should someone let them know what's going on here? —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi. I briefly stuck my nose in that mess, including trying to explain our policies, and am debating whether to draw more ire by doing so again or tiptoe away . . . but I think someone needs to point out that there is a BLP issue here. There's even a long paragraph supposedly by the subject of the article sitting on the talkpage: [2]. --Yngvadottir (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Reopening case, since it's been hanging for a few days now
Again, please put an end to this RfC here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I took a glance. The thing about the never-ending genre wars is that most persons not participating in them find them to be a pointless waste of time. This one appears to have been going on for years and would probably not be stopped by this RFC anyway. In any event RFCs usually last up to thirty days or whenever a consensus becomes clear. No consensus is clear to me at this time so I would say it should stay open in the hope that there will be broader participation in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are two editors in support of the addition, vs. one editor (the nominator) that opposes it. There are sources calling Bon Jovi "pop rock", but not a single source stating that they are not (a few not mentioning the subject matter, which in the nominator's opinion constitute proof of sorts). Seems like a consensus to me. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Two opinions against one is consensus? Hardly. I believe (without looking into it at all) the discussion should focus on the quality of the sources, not whether a source says it is pop rock or not. Of course sources that say Bon Jovi is pop rock are more readily available than sources that say "Bon Jovi is not pop rock". Sources generally state facts, not non-facts.--Atlan (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please read the thread and respond accordingly. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Two opinions against one is consensus? Hardly. I believe (without looking into it at all) the discussion should focus on the quality of the sources, not whether a source says it is pop rock or not. Of course sources that say Bon Jovi is pop rock are more readily available than sources that say "Bon Jovi is not pop rock". Sources generally state facts, not non-facts.--Atlan (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are two editors in support of the addition, vs. one editor (the nominator) that opposes it. There are sources calling Bon Jovi "pop rock", but not a single source stating that they are not (a few not mentioning the subject matter, which in the nominator's opinion constitute proof of sorts). Seems like a consensus to me. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Sri Lankan Caste Articles
I happened upon an article about a Sri Lankan caste called Govigama. Long, well written article, but very few citations. I tagged it, left a message on article talk, and was about to move on when I decided to check the similar articles at Category:Sinhalese castes. It has 24 articles, all of them pretty well written, but containing almost no citations. They all look like blatant original research.
I started tagging them, and realized they aren't the regular articles where different anons add unreferenced content. It's like someone wrote all of these with a very specific agenda. I'm not too familiar with the topic, but the Govigama article for example looks clearly biased. The main Caste system (Sri Lanka) article has had a multitude of tags since last year, so the subject is clearly disputed.
Should I just tag the rest of them and leave them? I don't really want to, because it looks like all of those articles are merely one persons take on a subject, that is at the very least pretty ambiguous.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, no, you should fix them (rewrite or just remove the unsourced stuff). But I'm wondering if, the parentheticals like "(EZ V.293, EZ I.246, 53 fn 7 etc.)" or "(Codrington.27)" are references? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 13:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- "EZ" evidently refers to "Epigraphia Zeylanica (EZ) Colombo Museum, Sri Lanka", listed under "References". There's an entry called Codrington there too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, this may sound radical, but you could try engaging with the editor who added the info. That person may be able to point you to the source, and proper citations can then be added. Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't really have the time to go through all those articles and try and fix them.
- "Codrington" refers to this book, which is perfectly fine to use as a source. I'm not saying the articles are 100% wrong. Just that it's likely they have a certain bias, which would obviously be bad. And up to the original editor to cite?
- I left a note on the talk of the editor who seems to have written all of these in 2006, User_talk:Wikramadithya. He hasn't been active since 5/09 so I don't know if he's still around. His name was familiar so I took a look at his talk/contribs. I've prod'ed some of his articles in the past and listed one at AFD. I don't know why I didn't catch these back then.--snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK, this may sound radical, but you could try engaging with the editor who added the info. That person may be able to point you to the source, and proper citations can then be added. Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- "EZ" evidently refers to "Epigraphia Zeylanica (EZ) Colombo Museum, Sri Lanka", listed under "References". There's an entry called Codrington there too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- The parenthetical citations scattered throughout these articles are legitimate WP:Inline citations, absolutely equal to any <ref> tag, despite being presented in plain black text and regular size type. Since the articles began with PAREN, the couple of WP:Footnotes should probably be converted to the original style, per WP:CITEVAR.
- "A certain bias" is not really the same thing as "original research". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Request removal of topic ban
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have an "indefinite topic ban" for what was believed to be disruptive editing; however there was no 3RR violation or uncivility. It has been 8 months now, I believe that time served is more than sufficient. Wondering if this can now be lifted? [[3]] --Duchamps_comb MFA 15:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- You weren't banned for 3RR or incivility, you were banned for inserting original research, synthesis and outright fabrication into a BLP, as well as edit warring. Relevant links are here and here. This user has requested the topic ban be lifted twice before, both times using the argument that they haven't committed 3RR violations or incivility: [4] [5] I can't see any reason to lift it at this time. Hut 8.5 17:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
To be fair I was working on Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories If you look at the log you will see how I have been treated. There have been 39 users that have been listed under "Disruption", about 90% have been issues 24Hrs-1 week. There are only four users with an indefinite topic ban, myself, two Sock, and a user with three prior blocks before given an indefinite.
The four users that were Banned received: 1Mo, 3Mo, 5Mo, and one Indefinitely (ME). As well there are five users that were Blocked indefinitely, a four time offender, a thee time offender, two socks, and one Racist.
I believe I have shown that I can walk away from all Obama articles for 8 months now and follow the wiki rules. Is imposing an heavy handed topic ban forever really necessary? Is making me an example? Is giving me a more harsh ban? How long do I have to pay for a simple mistake of thinking worldnetdaily.com was proper source? --Duchamps_comb MFA 03:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- To have your topic ban lifted it is essential that you understand why you were banned, why your edits were inappropriate and demonstrate you won't engage in such behaviour in the future. From your comments here I don't think you even understand why your edits were inappropriate. Every one of your three unban requests has started by stating that there was no 3RR violation or incivility, as if that means the incidents must have been minor. You don't accept that your behaviour was disruptive, only that it was "believed" to be disruptive. Using WorldNetDaily as a source was one of your offences, yes, but it wasn't the only one or even the most serious one. And the fact that you were working on an article about a fringe theory absolutely does not give you licence to misrepresent sources, tenaciously promote fringe theories or insert fabricated material into a biography of a living person. I also note that a few months ago you threatened to repeatedly appeal this ban until you got it reversed [6], and that you appear to have a history of disruptive behaviour. Given all this I don't think you would be a positive influence on Obama articles and can't see any reason to lift the ban. Hut 8.5 10:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Concur with Atlan. I see no reason to lift what was obviously a vital topic ban. Should be permanent, based on the history, but I'll be willing to be open-minded in about 5,000 non-contentious articlespace edits or so... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It's like this-- You guys seem to want me to prostrate myself and beg you like a dog to lift the topic ban, to tell you what a bad boy I was, to promise you to never act so badly ever again, to whip me into line. well it ain't happinin'... My offence was minor. I have stepped out from editing to gain some peace and clarity. If my eddits were so bad and misrepresent sources. Please show me and the others. Apparently you can snoop pretty well so lets all see my errors. I am trying to play by the rules here. It is really easy to have 10 accounts you know, just sayin'... Only a person who respects the way wiki works would keep coming here to try to have the restrictions lifted. Seems like you haters would want to give me some rope to hang myself and get myself banned all together. I'd be happy to impose a 1R restriction on my self on Obama articles, or something else like that. --Duchamps_comb MFA 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all, I don't want you to do any of the kind. All I want is from you is to go edit Wikipedia in other areas while your ban is in place. Between the previous unban request and this one, you have hardly done that. Furthermore, you come here with a clear lack of understanding of why the ban was enacted in the first place. No one wants you to beg, but a simple acknowledgement of any misbehavior in the past would go a long way. I perfectly understand if you don't see things that way, but don't expect the ban to be lifted anytime soon if you take a stance of denial.--Atlan (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- My two cents. From the language in your posts, it seems you still want to expect people here to let you off the hook for something you did wrong. It is better for you to make useful edits somewhere else, not insist on working on the one article you've been locked out from. Why don't you try looking over your work and see the misrepresentations instead of you asking to be spoon-fed them? If you can't understand the rationale behind the ban and try to deny everything you did, then there's no place for you here in Wikipedia.--Eaglestorm (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Per your statement of intention in this diff, I am changing this ban from an indefinite one, to a ban of fixed duration. The topic ban will expire on April 1, 2015. I am not joking. Further, if you disrupt the noticeboards by making ban appeals more frequently than once every year, you will be blocked for disruption. This is not a game of nomic, it is an encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC) (p.s. waiting to make sure there's consensus for this before adding it to the appropriate page...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam there is no need to break up in here and be a gang buster. I'm not trying to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. I admit I was pushing the flag pole, on a fringe topic. I was not trying to be a bad editor with malice or intentionally slander the POTUS. I do have a personality and interest in topics that to some puts me in a bad light. Example: I was the first one to add the word "climategate" to the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, it was an epic content war, now the entire world knows climategate. That is who I am. I also admit feeling not welcomed and slapped around by cabals and tag teams in the past. My time here has been quite a solo one. Weather you guys want to admit it or not wiki has a bias pov. Honestly I dont really want to edit any pages at the moment nor do I even want to touch an Obama page. As this new war makes want to puke... It seems to me some people (no names mentioned) can get away with murder here and others get the wiki-law thrown at them. On the issue of topic banning it has become an under the radar way to silence some editors. Just see Dog meat [7] I'm sure there is many more.. I just want to be treated fairly and go about my business. I think a 12 month topic ban and a self imposed 1R on all Obama articles in the future is way more than fair for my transgressions. --Duchamps_comb MFA 03:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting topic ban: I see no evidence that the user understands the reasons for their topic ban nor any evidence that they will not engage in similar conduct in the future. N419BH 03:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Since Duchamp brought up the ANI thread I started on another user, figured I could thrown in my thoughts here. See, the difference in that situation was that an admin declared a topic ban without any sort of backing; the article you were topic banned on was under discretionary sanctions, and thus admins have the authority to make the call they did. In any event, if you don't "even want to touch an Obama page", it sounds like everyone is in agreement--the community doesn't want you to edit Obama pages, and you don't want to edit Obama pages, so we're all settled, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm in no hurry to edit Obama pages, thus why I asked for 4 more months of the ban (does that sound like a a mad man with a obsession). However at some time in the future I may, and would like to have the choice/option. --P.S. I might add I had no warning before the topic ban, no talk page warning, no previous block related to Obama pages, nothing at all so to jump straight to a topic ban seems a little heavy even if I were a Klan member or Natzi (which I am not)...--Duchamps_comb MFA 05:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- That's not true. Before the ban was enacted you were given several warnings telling you that your edits were inappropriate, and one of these warnings threatened you with a block. You carried on making problematic edits after these warnings were issued, and your response to one of the editors leaving the warnings was less than helpful. Hut 8.5 12:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Duchamps, I suggest you put away the shovel to prevent digging yourself deeper. If you have no interest in editing Wikipedia, then don't. If you want to edit other articles, fine, go right ahead. If you want to edit Obama articles, you cannot. That's the reality of the situation. Right now, you're just making yourself look bad. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I misspoke I meant to say I was not warned by an admin, true I was warned by user DD22.
here is the correct time line.
My first edit as of 00:04, 4 July. [8]
edit was undone as of 00:10, 4 July. [9]
First warning from user DD22 00:13, 4 July 2010 [10]
I reversed (1R) as of 00:25, 4 July. [11]
edit was undone as of 00:32, 4 July.[12]
Second warning from user DD22 00:35, 4 July 2010[13]
I reversed (2R) and tried to reword to be more accurate as of 01:37, 4 July. 2010 [14]
I was undone by a second editor. I stopped editing the page as of 01:53, 4 July. 2010 [15]
AIN filed by user DD22 02:01, 4 July 2010[16]
I posted on the talk page as of 02:14, 4 July.[17]
I stopped editing the article as of 01:37, 4 July after seeing user DD22 second warning.; I was blocked as of 08:00, 4 July.
So for 6.5 hrs. I had no activity, I walked away with consensus from the talk page to not add any of my information or refs. Is this not how wikipedia is supposed to work?--Duchamps_comb MFA 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Facepalm Well, can't say I didn't try. Deeper we go... — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's plain to see that the OP here should NEVER edit an Obama-related article again. Good topic ban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I know whereof I speak. I put myself on an unofficial Obama topic ban nearly two years ago, from the frustration of having to deal with the conspiracist looneys. Unless the OP is willing to repudiate his previous edits, he needs to remain Obama-banned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's plain to see that the OP here should NEVER edit an Obama-related article again. Good topic ban. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- No one has objected to the ban modification I proposed last night, so I've enacted it. Ban expires 1 April 2015, and no more than 1 unban request per year. I've informed Duchamps comb that he is no longer to post to this thread, so in fairness I'm closing it to others as well. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Iaaasi
Having discovered that User:Iaaasi has gone back to his old ways and is socking again, I've instituted a anonblock on 79.117.96.0/20. Feel free to loosen it if it causes problems, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of non-abusive IP editing from there. --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Community ban proposal
I'd support more than a rangeblock here. My logic is simple: you blow a second chance, you're gone. Edit-warring and socking is not on, but committing those offenses after being let back in from the cold? We need a community ban. --Dylan620 (t • c) 01:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. Iaaasi was given a second chance, and has comprehensively blown it. A ban seems in order if he's socking so that socks can be blocked on sight. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support as uninvolved. Iaaasi has exhausted community patience through tendentious editing, and further socking when blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support, but not sure why it's necessary to have such a ban to block his socks on sight. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
NOTE Guys do you remember that? Who proved that he is not User:Bonaparte? He didn't exactly seem too stressed while pushing the admins' patience. What if he took this so lightly, because he will travel somewhere else in the coming weeks and therefore might use another — probably already existing — account "legitimately"? Millions of Romanians work abroad as guest workers.
In short: serious anti-Hungarian bias is more telling than IP ranges. Banning User:Bonaparte wasn't enough in the long term, he kept showing up. Squash Racket (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- So what do you recommend? --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know. He already pretended to be a Serbian, so who knows in what forms and incarnations he is present currently on WP. I repeat: the only thing that is common in these accounts is the strong anti-Hungarian bias. User:Khoikhoi, an admin became quite an expert on dealing with Bonaparte socks, but he is not much around nowadays. Squash Racket (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- A community ban doesn't necessitate a rangeblock. It just means when he socks, he gets blocked, no warnings 1-4, etc. Bans just mean taking out the trash without the fuss. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- What I'm trying to say is this: how many times do you need to ban the already banned User:Bonaparte? If Iaaasi is his sock, then why do you need a process like that? If WP can't prove that Iaaasi is Bonaparte's sock, then what prevents him from showing up with yet another account from another IP range? Squash Racket (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think we have a miscommunication here. There's a difference between a WP:BAN and a WP:BLOCK. A block is when an editor/IP has been prevented from editing Wikipedia through the software. A ban is more like a big warning sign, telling the editor they are not allowed to edit. If they sock or IP to get around it, a ban allows Admins to block on sight, without going through the rigamarole of warning the user, seeking dispute resolution, or going through ANI. In other words, bans make it easier to enforce blocks. If Iaaasi pops back up, a ban allows admins to block him immediately. That's all. There's nothing we can do software-wise to completely block him, but a ban makes admins' jobs easier. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- What I'm trying to say is this: how many times do you need to ban the already banned User:Bonaparte? If Iaaasi is his sock, then why do you need a process like that? If WP can't prove that Iaaasi is Bonaparte's sock, then what prevents him from showing up with yet another account from another IP range? Squash Racket (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- A community ban doesn't necessitate a rangeblock. It just means when he socks, he gets blocked, no warnings 1-4, etc. Bans just mean taking out the trash without the fuss. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know. He already pretended to be a Serbian, so who knows in what forms and incarnations he is present currently on WP. I repeat: the only thing that is common in these accounts is the strong anti-Hungarian bias. User:Khoikhoi, an admin became quite an expert on dealing with Bonaparte socks, but he is not much around nowadays. Squash Racket (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Support. If a banned editor has become recalcitrant after being unbanned, it means the unban request itself was not made in good faith, and the editor who granted that has been totally had. A site ban would work best? --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Nolander Thread at ANI
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Would some on mind moving the Nolander thread to Sub-page? Its causing my pretty up to date browser to slow to trickle when loading the page. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 00:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- thanx The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Noleander. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Wow that was fast... Popcorn any one? The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 05:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Noleander. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- thanx The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 01:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Jews and banking
I don't know if this is the right place to post this, considering ARBCOM is in the process of accepting a case on the matter, but I wanted to bring this to the community's attention, and if this is the wrong venue, I apologize. I'm not requesting any action, but rather some guidance as to what (if anything) I should do. If the answer is "nothing, let ARBCOM sort it out", then that's fine with me.
- On March 25, I nominated "Jews and money" (now "Economic history of the Jews") for deletion as a POV content fork. That discussion is ongoing.
- In the meantime, multiple editors have been documenting and in some cases removing serious misrepresentation of sources in the article.
- This morning, doing new page patrol, I saw that Jews and banking had been created, essentially as a copy-and-paste from an early version of Jews and money that included the misrepresentation of sources that had been removed from its "parent" article.
Rather than just slap it with a A10 speedy tag I thought it would be best to bring it here for broader attention. 28bytes (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeh... I had my doubts about creating Jews and banking and Role of Jews in the development of capitalism. However, there is a case to be made for these articles; certainly the case is stronger than for Economic history of the Jews (which was formerly titled Jews and money). My perspective on Wikipedia is that I am an inclusionist and so I am trying to salvage whatever is encyclopedic in Economic history of the Jews before it gets deleted. And, if it doesn't get deleted, then it should be a summary style article of which Jews and banking and Role of Jews in the development of capitalism are subsidiary detail articles. I see why my actions might be of concern to some editors but I don't think this is something that warrants admin attention. I made clear what I was doing and why at Talk:Economic history of the Jews and there is some discussion opposing my actions which I will respond to shortly. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, right? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- As I said on the talk page: to the degree this article is fixable, I think this needs to be fixed in user space first, rather than putting it up in the mainspace with all its admitted false and misleading statements. I urge you to move this article to your userspace. Its presence in the mainspace is damaging to the project. 28bytes (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- ArbCom aren't likely to decide whether an article is going to be deleted or not so there's not much point in waiting on that. If it's part of a conduct problem, it might help if an admin could alert ArbCom's attention to it during the evidence phase (particularly in the event the article is deleted). It seems to me that you are going about it the right way: trying to persuade that it be moved to the userspace, and failing that, using standard deletion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just before closing this, I want clarify that in my above sentence, "standard deletion" is not limited to AFD. Ncmvocalist (talk)
- It's totally inappropriate to copy and paste the article in contention, with an ARBCOM case pending, and a nomination for deletion, into two new articles. They should be deleted. The editor can copy them in his user space if appropriate, but this certainly seems to be inappropriate run-around. Jews and banking and Role of Jews in the development of capitalism indeed. Nominate it deletion. Dave Dial (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Copy-paste recreating content form an article that is as obviously contentious as Jews and Money AND which is being considered for AFD is a very inappriate action that I think warrants a strong reprimand. It is disrespectful for the consensus building process. Very bad idea. I have nominated both for POV-check. I also strongly recommend userfying. And I would certainly endorse deleting them right away if the main article is closed as delete.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Ncmvocalist. The proper venue for your concerns is an AFD. As stated in the RFARB on Noleander, 99% of the time ARBCOM rules on conduct, not content. Content disputes should be resolved via the dispute resolution process. At issue in the ARBCOM case is User:Noleander's tendentious style of editing and his alleged anti-semitism. I think you would have a harder time making that case against me. (Frankly, I think that the case against Noleander may also be less than bullet-proof but I don't have as extensive a history with him as other editors do so my assessment of him may not be as complete as theirs.) I have attempted to salvage the valuable parts of the article under AFD and I have done so openly by placing a comment on the article's Talk Page. If there is a sense that the copied text should also be deleted, then that can be done by separate AFD's on the newly created articles. Yes, I know it's a pain to do three AFDs instead of just one but deciding to delete Economic history of the Jews is a different decision from deciding to delete Role of Jews in the development of capitalism and Jews and banking. IMO, the biggest problem with Economic history of the Jews is that it strings together several related topics together in a way that can be interpreted to push an anti-semitic POV. My personal opinion is that Economic history of the Jews is unsalvageable but that some of the individual topics in Noleander's original version of the article can be encyclopedic articles. In any event, this is the wrong place for this discussion as there is (IMHO) no cause for admin action here. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- This would seem to be a bit of an issue under Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#General_advice: "AfD participants should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally, before the debate closes...." (It goes on.) As that document says, if you think that the content in an article up for deletion should be moved to a new article, you should propose that and wait for consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yeh, thanx. As it turns out, another editor referenced the same text to me on my Talk Page a couple hours ago and, acting on the above text, I userfyed the two articles in question. I think this ANI thread is ripe for closure now. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin (or admins) close Talk:Warwick (disambiguation)#Requested move and Talk:Nanyue#Requested move? Both discussions have been open for more than a month. Cunard (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Series of RFC's need closing
The whole "family" of WikiGuide RFCs have been open for well over a month:creating new articles; CSD criteria for new articles; being templated; socialising on WP; and being welcomed. Several of them will be no-brainer closes as the results are obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- I knocked out the welcoming and IP article creation ones, but I participated in the others so someone else needs to close them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure? I looked at the revision histories, and it looks like they were all created over a month ago but not made public until March 11 or 12... – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 16:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- ooh. I went by the first timestamp. I had figured the uptick in activity co-incided with when the were listed at WP:CENT. I'm pretty sure the two I already closed would have the same result if they were left open, but I guess we should leave the other ones up a bit longer. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree -- I don't think there is any harm in leaving those two closed. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 19:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- If I may tiptoe in here with a non-admin observation, I'm fine too with leaving them this way, but I think it may be useful to point out that it doesn't look to me like these were proposals to implement a particular change, so much as requests to generate ideas about the issues raised, so it may not be as simple as "implement" or "don't implement". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I agree -- I don't think there is any harm in leaving those two closed. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 19:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- ooh. I went by the first timestamp. I had figured the uptick in activity co-incided with when the were listed at WP:CENT. I'm pretty sure the two I already closed would have the same result if they were left open, but I guess we should leave the other ones up a bit longer. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Are you sure? I looked at the revision histories, and it looks like they were all created over a month ago but not made public until March 11 or 12... – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 16:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Original research by G-Zay
User has continued to post original research and interpretations of published material ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]) despite warnings and reverts by multiple editors. Some intervention, perhaps with a final warning, might be helpful. Prime Blue (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seems he's locking horns with Jonathan Hardin'. Don't know who's right. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Jonathan Hardin has not shown the best behavior in their disagreements (reverting on principle without solid explanations, using profanity once), but the addition of original research by G-Zay is a separate issue in most cases. Maybe letting him get off one last time, perhaps he has learned his lesson? Prime Blue (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Mediation concluded
Following up on the ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#Mediation anchor, Tony, Sven, Adam & I have reached a mediated agreement that resolves the outstanding conflict between the signatory parties. The agreement only deals with the disagreements between the four signatory parties. The agreement is private, however it can be made public if any party breaks the agreement. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I, Sven Manguard Wha?, acknowledge that the above statement is accurate and that a common document has been agreed upon. With the mediation concluded, I also have unretired from Wikipedia. 03:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Requested moves backlog
The wp:Requested_moves#Backlog is now more than a month beyond the nominal seven days, despite being templated. Could some additional admins please step up to cut it down to size? TIA, LeadSongDog come howl! 18:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
92 articles which as a class all seem to me to violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY
The category is Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society. Each of these articles consists of a mere listing of the chapters of these fraternities, sororities, etc. How does this not violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Have you considered taking them to wp:AFD? I honestly do not see why you chose to bring this up at the administrators noticeboard. Yoenit (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to me that there's a quasi-philosophical aspect involved that needs more eyes than an AfD discussion draws. If you'd really rather do a Mass AfD for this, go ahead (I'm not able to use Twinkle at the moment). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- You might be right about that aspect and perhaps an RfC could help, but you would probably need to think about its precise scope before setting it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think "Mere listing" is very much not true. Many of them include the chapter name, school, dates of activity, level of school recognition, and location in the organization structure. Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fraternities_and_Sororities has designed templates to make creating these pages easier. There has even been an effort to encourage that for fraternities with a decent number of chapters that it be moved to a separate page to keep from overwhelming the page that it is currently on. Another guide is that this section of Wikipedia should reflect the best (and only) encyclopedia on Fraternities and Sororities: Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. Naraht (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- You might be right about that aspect and perhaps an RfC could help, but you would probably need to think about its precise scope before setting it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Seems to me that there's a quasi-philosophical aspect involved that needs more eyes than an AfD discussion draws. If you'd really rather do a Mass AfD for this, go ahead (I'm not able to use Twinkle at the moment). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Audit Subcommittee appointments (2011)
Effective 1 April 2011, Bahamut0013 (talk · contribs), Courcelles (talk · contribs), and Keegan (talk · contribs) are appointed as community representatives to the Audit Subcommittee. The period of appointment will be 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012. AGK (talk · contribs) is designated as an alternate member of the subcommittee and will become a full member should one of the appointees resign their role during the term. The Arbitration Committee thanks all of the candidates, as well as the many members of the community who participated in the appointment process for these roles.
The Arbitration Committee also extends its thanks to Dominic (talk · contribs), Jredmond (talk · contribs), and MBisanz (talk · contribs), whose terms in office were extended so that an orderly transfer of responsibility could occur. Dominic will return to his previous role as a CheckUser and Oversighter; MBisanz will assume his role as an Oversighter. The Committee also thanks former subcommittee member Tznkai (talk · contribs), who was one of the original appointees to the Committee in 2009, and resigned in August 2010.
- Support: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, PhilKnight, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Mailer diablo, Newyorkbrad, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Shell Kinney, Xeno
- Oppose: None
- Abstain: None
- Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, Iridescent
- Inactive: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, Sir Fozzie
For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 16:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Rangeblock needed
A persistent vandal/troll is attacking 2011 Libyan civil war and its talk page. The same guy recently forced 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami to be protected (note they both introduce the same bizarre phrasing "disassembly of human beings" [24][25][26]). He keeps dodging blocks on his individual IPs and I can see several other ranges of the form 208.54.something have been blocked previously. I've never tried a rangeblock before so I'd rather someone else handled it. Hut 8.5 16:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've semi'ed the page. The range is 208.54.0.0/17, but that's quite large, so I wouldn't do it before a CU looks for collateral damage. Courcelles 16:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- He just registered an account at SaveTheDisassembled! (talk · contribs) if that helps. Hut 8.5 16:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, I've done an AO ACB block on 208.54.0.0/17 for 3 hours. Very short, but it can quite easily be extended. I didn't see any useful IP contributions on the range for the last week (100 edits). Courcelles 17:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- He just registered an account at SaveTheDisassembled! (talk · contribs) if that helps. Hut 8.5 16:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Eyes needed...
If only because people aren't always the brightest people in the world, The Onion (Motto: We're more accurate than FoxNEWS) just ran this little fun story: [27]. Given the distinct possibility we may see an uptick in vandalism at the relevent article, a few more people may want to add it to their watchlists... --Jayron32 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
General query re privacy
I've been out of the loop for a while on this. What is current policy/guidelines on very young editors (12/13) putting their biographies (real names, parents' names, educational history, etc) on their userpage? I don't want to splash this over AN and add to any existing privacy problems, but if someone's more clued up than I am, I may want to email you the details. In this particular case there is also a severe problem with what I can only describe as immature editing - not malicious or unserious, but deeply lacking in WP:COMPETENCE, to the point where I do not think the best mentoring in the world would help. Feels like I could use some advice on handling this. Moreschi (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete it and email oversight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)What HJ said. T. Canens (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Eyes Needed
BLP violations on locked page. Ronn Torossian--greenbay1313 (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)