You Can Act Like A Man (talk | contribs) |
You Can Act Like A Man (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 375: | Line 375: | ||
::: The age on other planets is cool. --[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 14:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC) |
::: The age on other planets is cool. --[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light">(Talk)</span>]] 14:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
{{archivebottom}} |
{{archivebottom}} |
||
*It's a pretty cretinous thing to join WP for but would be pretty bleeding [[Stalinist]] to get rid of it as it's so harmless. <font face="Georgia">[[User:You Can Act Like A Man|<span style="color:Green">'''Basket''' </span>]]<sub>[[User talk:You Can Act Like A Man|<span style="color:orange">'''Feudalist''' </span></sub>]]</font> 17:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:33, 14 May 2013
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
|
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
Talk:Anatolia#RfC:_Should_the_map_be_changed?
(Initiated 113 days ago on 18 February 2024) RfC tag has expired and there haven't been new comments in months. Vanezi (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?
(Initiated 87 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
new closer needed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Talk:Ariana Grande#RFC: LEAD IMAGE
(Initiated 67 days ago on 4 April 2024) This RFC was kind of a mess and I don't think any consensus came out of it, but it could benefit from a formal closure so that interested editors can reset their dicussion and try to figure out a way forward (context: several editors have made changes to the lead image since the RFC discussion petered out, but these were reverted on the grounds that the RFC was never closed). Note that an IP user split off part of the RFC discussion into a new section, Talk:Ariana Grande#Split: New Met Gala 2024 image. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League
(Initiated 65 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC) - As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 63 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)
(Initiated 63 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead
(Initiated 61 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals
(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead
(Initiated 38 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL
(Initiated 34 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Ben Roberts-Smith#RFC: War criminal in first sentence of the lede
(Initiated 33 days ago on 8 May 2024) Last !vote was 27 May, 2024. Note: RfC was started by a blocking evading IP. TarnishedPathtalk 11:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 8 | 17 | 13 | 38 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 14 | 1 | 15 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
RfD | 0 | 1 | 20 | 9 | 30 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 17 |
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Phone computer
(Initiated 69 days ago on 2 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities
(Initiated 68 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe
(Initiated 65 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States
(Initiated 64 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres
(Initiated 64 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)
(Initiated 64 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family
(Initiated 63 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.
(Initiated 62 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv converse∫edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 6#Larissa Hodge
(Initiated 62 days ago on 9 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers
(Initiated 59 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists
(Initiated 58 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers
(Initiated 56 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 19#Dougie (disambiguation)
(Initiated 53 days ago on 18 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons
(Initiated 47 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Sucking peepee
(Initiated 47 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people
(Initiated 45 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history
(Initiated 45 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Fictional animals by taxon
(Initiated 44 days ago on 27 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Closed by editor HouseBlaster. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 14:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau
(Initiated 43 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge
(Initiated 41 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh
(Initiated 35 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Tamil_genocide#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 83 days ago on 19 March 2024) Merge discussion which has been occurring since 19 March 2024. Discussion has well and truly slowed. TarnishedPathtalk 14:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD
(Initiated 55 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles
(Initiated 39 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)
(Initiated 7 days ago on 3 June 2024) - Only been open three days but consensus appears clear, and the earlier it is resolved the easier it will be to clean up as edits are being made based on the current result. BilledMammal (talk) 08:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Site ban discussion for User:Evlekis
- Evlekis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
WP:RFPP is blowing up with requests to semi-protect articles by now-indefblocked Evlekis, who appears to have more IPs at their disposal than you can shake a stick at; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. Besides the usual Balkanist disruption, they're also hounding Peacemaker67 and Bobrayner. I think a formal ban would be a nice signal that this behavior is unacceptable; in addition, I would like that self-congratulatory MySpace social networking thing they put up in the place of a talk page deleted: an editor with such a blatant disregard for the rules here has no right to put a family album (children, exes, resumes, their life's work) on our beautiful website. Drmies (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've been very active with the case, reverting, protecting, blocking, tagging and deleting, which is easy enough since his edits are hard to miss. Keep in mind, he has a one year AE ban for violating his topic ban concurrent with his indef for socking the first time, via User:Sandstein. This is a bit earlier than usual for a site ban, but it is rather unusual circumstances, with a large amount of collateral damage. He does seem to have gone to the dark side of the force, to which there is no return. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- there is certainly more than enough scope for an ARBMAC discretionary sanctions site ban (given he topic banned under ARBMAC before he was indefinitely blocked and began evading) or even a community site ban. It might make it clearer to him that his behaviour in evading his block and topic ban is completely unacceptable. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- Commenting as the administrator who imposed the recent AE sanctions and the block for their violation via socking, it does appear to me that the sockpuppetous block/ban evasion by this user has reached the degree at which a community site ban is normally imposed, though it doesn't have any substantial additional effect. My understanding is that a site ban can't be imposed as a discretionary sanction, only a topic ban, which already exists. Sandstein 15:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- my mistake. I thought that even a site ban was available under the "or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" provision, but I'll butt out. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
- No need to butt out, its hard enough for seasoned admin to keep up with all policies on this. Even I called in Sandstein because he knows Arb issues better than I ever will. Site bans are only enacted by a motion by Arb (long, time consuming, etc.) or by a formal proposal here at WP:AN. As Sandstein has pointed out, there is little practical difference since he is already indef blocked for socking, concurrent with a Discretionary Sanction block for a full year. Anyone can automatically revert his edits on site without violating 3RR, we automatically mass nuke his new articles and edits as soon as we find them, which is very quickly. If you see other socks, file at SPI and feel free to ping me. I've worked all his sock cases so I'm familiar enough to take rapid action blocking/protecting/nuking/denying. That is the most effect method of dealing with it, removing all rewards in the behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Copy that. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- No need to butt out, its hard enough for seasoned admin to keep up with all policies on this. Even I called in Sandstein because he knows Arb issues better than I ever will. Site bans are only enacted by a motion by Arb (long, time consuming, etc.) or by a formal proposal here at WP:AN. As Sandstein has pointed out, there is little practical difference since he is already indef blocked for socking, concurrent with a Discretionary Sanction block for a full year. Anyone can automatically revert his edits on site without violating 3RR, we automatically mass nuke his new articles and edits as soon as we find them, which is very quickly. If you see other socks, file at SPI and feel free to ping me. I've worked all his sock cases so I'm familiar enough to take rapid action blocking/protecting/nuking/denying. That is the most effect method of dealing with it, removing all rewards in the behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- my mistake. I thought that even a site ban was available under the "or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project" provision, but I'll butt out. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The blatant socking is, at this point, essentially trolling and a site ban discussion is just feeding the beast. And the page blanking is obviously punitive and petty. Whoever closes this should count this vote as either a support or oppose (whatever allows us to declare consensus and move on sooner.) NE Ent 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing petty about it, Ent. Thank you for your insights. Also, Zwarte Riek is still, despite your best intentions, a red link. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Imagine you're a non-editor reader browsing Jelena Dokic. You notice the talk tab, and, out of curiosity click. You see a note signed "Evlekis 11:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Евлекис", and click the hyperlinked name. You can either end up at previous or current. Which is going make you more interested in being part of the Wikipedia community? It's like taking an exit off the highway. Will ending up in a neighborhood with chain link fences and bars on the windows or one with open lawns and kid's bikes lying on the lawns make you more inclined to stop for a bite to eat at the corner? The fact that Zwarte Riek is redlinked doesn't concern me nearly as much as the quarter million "unreferenced" templates. Doc M and I could both edit every day for the rest of our lives and never get through the list. If a sock is messing with content and targeting a fellow editor I'm more than happy to do some rolling back [1], but when it comes badge o' shame and threads about how horrible an eight year, 22,000 mainspace editor is -- not interested. Think about what messages what we say and do to imperfect editors sends. NE Ent 11:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- OR it lets a new editor know that WP takes proper editing seriously and he should obay the rules. If we never let editors start down the path of vandalism they never become vandals. Has it ever occured to you that if we let editors get away small problems they begin to think they can get away with large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.142 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Those tags are used daily, multiple times, by SPI clerks. I rely on them for the links to get to cases and lists of socks. Seriously, I use those every single day, they aren't put there as a badge of shame, they are an administrative tool. And what does having 22k mainspace edits have to do with anything? Are you suggesting we treat someone with 100 mainspace edits differently? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- OR it lets a new editor know that WP takes proper editing seriously and he should obay the rules. If we never let editors start down the path of vandalism they never become vandals. Has it ever occured to you that if we let editors get away small problems they begin to think they can get away with large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.142 (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Imagine you're a non-editor reader browsing Jelena Dokic. You notice the talk tab, and, out of curiosity click. You see a note signed "Evlekis 11:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Евлекис", and click the hyperlinked name. You can either end up at previous or current. Which is going make you more interested in being part of the Wikipedia community? It's like taking an exit off the highway. Will ending up in a neighborhood with chain link fences and bars on the windows or one with open lawns and kid's bikes lying on the lawns make you more inclined to stop for a bite to eat at the corner? The fact that Zwarte Riek is redlinked doesn't concern me nearly as much as the quarter million "unreferenced" templates. Doc M and I could both edit every day for the rest of our lives and never get through the list. If a sock is messing with content and targeting a fellow editor I'm more than happy to do some rolling back [1], but when it comes badge o' shame and threads about how horrible an eight year, 22,000 mainspace editor is -- not interested. Think about what messages what we say and do to imperfect editors sends. NE Ent 11:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ent, I'm disappointed that you would call my actions punitive and petty. If you go and look, I put the standard SOCKMASTER tag on his page, as I do every Master who has confirmed socks at SPI. It is built into our scripts for clerking there, and automatically blanks the page and adds that tag. Every single master is always tagged, as is every single puppet on every single case I've ever worked, and clerks are instructed to do exact this. I've even gone out of my way discussing with the master, trying to resolve the issue, on my talk page. Your assumptions are way off base here, and are a bit of a slap in the face. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'd agree with editors above that the behaviour has reached the point where the community would be talking about a ban; but there's a second point; a ban wouldn't actually make much different to how we treat disruptive editing. As the target of hundreds of venomous Evlekis edits (I'll skip the usual string of diffs), my gut feeling might be to say "We need a site ban! And a community ban! We need super-duper stricter sanctions!" but that cannot improve on the status quo, where disruptive edits are rolled back or revdel'd, attack pages are speedy-deleted, and socks are blocked. bobrayner (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- A typical site ban discussion. The case itself is turned into a "discussion" of how really pointless banning any editor truly is. Politics. Doc talk 13:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- On the contrary, his activity has completely subsided following the range blocks I set yesterday. Had someone pinged me about range blocks (I never add SPI cases to my watch list), this discussion almost certainly wouldn't have arisen, yet no one even asked if they were possible, regrettably. WilliamH (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I for one think its a shame that it came to indefinitely blocking a longterm editor who seemed to edit positively until this all went down. Perhaps this is a lesson that more care needs to be taken before imposing indefinite blocks. More often than not it turns the user into a vandal or sock. Frankly from what I have seen in this case there was a lot of negative actions done by the individual and several of the admins involved. Kumioko (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Had this not been an AE, necessitating Sandstein get involved, then I likely would have talked with him (as I have since the block) and tried to work out a way for him to come back in short order. He still can come back, but it is up to him to pull back, cool down, and start a dialog about how we move forward from here. That he has DS block does complicate things, however, as only Sandstein or Arb can really lift that. As long as he is venting, it isn't likely to happen. Lifting the socking portion of the block isn't problematic and could have been done by any admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree it would have been better if it wasn't taken to AE. Nothing good ever comes out of an AE discussion unless the person is an admin and/or is completely uninvolved in the case at all. Since my opinions of Arbcom and AE are well known to be extremely low it shouldn't surprise you when I say that I I have no faith at all that regardless of the users conduct Arbcom, Sandstein nor anyone else related to AE (which is really only Sandstein anyway) will lift the ban. Sandstein nor Arbcom are known to be forgiving and once they make a decision they treat it like a prison term with no parole. I have a lot of respect for some of the Arbcom members as individuals and editors but no respect whatsoever in the process of AE or Arbcom and I think WP would be better off without it. With that said, I agree that I hope that the user cools down a little and takes a break. No good will come from them turning into a vandal (something all too tempting when one has been expelled from the community). Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it hadn't been taken to AE, then the pov-pushing (and every tool used to support pov-pushing: Deception, BLP abuses, misuse of sources, sockpuppetry, canvassing &c) would have continued as before. In what way would that be a better outcome? The main problem started long before the AE case; AE just documented it and brought it to the community's attention. Subsequent vandalism is more visible - and less harmful - than the systematic distortion of many articles. There are a couple of other editors in the Balkans who might also have earned a trip to AE, but I'm not keen on starting drama right now. bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. There is nothing good that AE does for the project. For what its worth I have been reading over it for the last couple hours and I don't like the way you handled it either. Your comments are a clear exhageration of the case but unfortunately no one here is going to take the time to look into it so it appears you win. Kumioko (talk) 21:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it hadn't been taken to AE, then the pov-pushing (and every tool used to support pov-pushing: Deception, BLP abuses, misuse of sources, sockpuppetry, canvassing &c) would have continued as before. In what way would that be a better outcome? The main problem started long before the AE case; AE just documented it and brought it to the community's attention. Subsequent vandalism is more visible - and less harmful - than the systematic distortion of many articles. There are a couple of other editors in the Balkans who might also have earned a trip to AE, but I'm not keen on starting drama right now. bobrayner (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I agree it would have been better if it wasn't taken to AE. Nothing good ever comes out of an AE discussion unless the person is an admin and/or is completely uninvolved in the case at all. Since my opinions of Arbcom and AE are well known to be extremely low it shouldn't surprise you when I say that I I have no faith at all that regardless of the users conduct Arbcom, Sandstein nor anyone else related to AE (which is really only Sandstein anyway) will lift the ban. Sandstein nor Arbcom are known to be forgiving and once they make a decision they treat it like a prison term with no parole. I have a lot of respect for some of the Arbcom members as individuals and editors but no respect whatsoever in the process of AE or Arbcom and I think WP would be better off without it. With that said, I agree that I hope that the user cools down a little and takes a break. No good will come from them turning into a vandal (something all too tempting when one has been expelled from the community). Kumioko (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Had this not been an AE, necessitating Sandstein get involved, then I likely would have talked with him (as I have since the block) and tried to work out a way for him to come back in short order. He still can come back, but it is up to him to pull back, cool down, and start a dialog about how we move forward from here. That he has DS block does complicate things, however, as only Sandstein or Arb can really lift that. As long as he is venting, it isn't likely to happen. Lifting the socking portion of the block isn't problematic and could have been done by any admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 18:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I for one think its a shame that it came to indefinitely blocking a longterm editor who seemed to edit positively until this all went down. Perhaps this is a lesson that more care needs to be taken before imposing indefinite blocks. More often than not it turns the user into a vandal or sock. Frankly from what I have seen in this case there was a lot of negative actions done by the individual and several of the admins involved. Kumioko (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- On the contrary, his activity has completely subsided following the range blocks I set yesterday. Had someone pinged me about range blocks (I never add SPI cases to my watch list), this discussion almost certainly wouldn't have arisen, yet no one even asked if they were possible, regrettably. WilliamH (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, per my comment here, the original suspicion behind the case appears to have been entirely vindicated. WilliamH (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Sofort and WP:OUTING | attacked by cross-wiki trolls User:Tehranpizzaparlor
Tehranpizzaparlor (talk · contribs)
Akhshurush (talk · contribs)
پسر کوهستان (talk · contribs)
2.176.36.62 (talk · contribs)
2.176.30.119 (talk · contribs)
2.176.3.175 (talk · contribs)
and ip...,...,
Hello, I was attacked by cross-wiki trolls for what I did in Persian Wikipedia, (all this user and all IP here) - (1) and (2) and all ip and user edit (Here) The IP range is so big that global blocking isn't possible (as one of stewards said) and these links contain my personal information and very insulating swears (In Persian). so please hide these revisions and protect my user page for except autoconfirmed users
Diskussion: (My En.wiki history) - (Admin En.wiki Request) - (Fa.wiki Request) - (History) - (Lavasani ID)
Thanks.فلورانس (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- There has been some cleaning up, some blocks, and some protection. Possibly enough. We probably need someone who speaks Farsi to identify any remaining unwanted edits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia bug in category statements in templates
Graham87 11:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Someone requested Template:Korea Baseball Organization to be history-merged to Template:Baseball in South Korea. This request put Template:Korea Baseball Organization in Category:Candidates for history merging, and as an unwanted side effect, that put into Category:Candidates for history merging also 3 articles that transclude Template:Korea Baseball Organization :: these 3 articles are Kia Tigers and Korea Baseball Championship and List of baseball stadiums in South Korea. At 09:19, 10 May 2013 I obeyed that histmerge request. But now, nearly 2 days after, those 3 articles still show as members of Category:Candidates for history merging, although they never needed history-merging. It looks like that somewhere a buffer needs to be flushed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Those 3 articles are still showing now as members of Category:Candidates for history merging. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Daniel L. Barth
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think I need some help here... Daniel L. Barth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scientific Alan 2 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted, editor indef'ed. WP:LTA->WP:RBI. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Alan Greger likes this Scientific Alan 2(Click here to talk)(What have I done?)(Me) 20:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look
I'm at a bit of loss to understand why no action has been taken on this and this over on ANI. The former (which I !voted in) seems like it has reached an actionable consensus, while the latter appears as if some kind of warning would be appropriate.
Could some bold admin please take a look before these two items scroll off the board? Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- No takers? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Help please! Second opinion(s) requested, from uninvolved admin(s)
In February my tendentious editing behavior on talk pages was the subject of an AN:
I recognize I continue to have an issue with this, as I have difficulty limiting my contributions to discussions that I'm interested in. Anyway, that AN was closed by TParis (talk · contribs) with the following fair and reasonable decision:
- Born2Cycle is under a limited discussion ban at the discretion of an uninvolved admin when his behavior becomes counter productive to the discussion. Meaning: An uninvolved admin may ban him from a particular discussion he is involved in on a case by case basis after a warning that can be enforced with a block between 24 hours and the duration of the discussion he is disruptive in. This includes discussions about the close of a move or article titles discussion anywhere on Wikipedia.
I thought that was very fair because then if I engage in my problematic behavior again in some discussion, I can be notified with a warning from an uninvolved admin, and will stop.
So, I have been going along with no issues, or so I thought. That is, no uninvolved admin has issued any warnings to me. However, my behavior at a recent RM discussion became discussed, and now another admin is considering blocking me for 30 days from all RM discussions, even though that discussion was closed weeks ago, the block would go far beyond the parameters set in that AN, and there is no current issue. This seems purely punitive to me. Is that fair and appropriate?
This admin is going to go through with the block unless he hears objections from uninvolved admins. Hence my plea for help here. The discussion where the 30 day block of me has been proposed is here:
My attempts to discuss this with the other admin are here:
Thanks in advance. --B2C 21:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Quoting: "Born2cycle made 69 comments over the course of ten days at Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans", which is kind of why WP:Don't bludgeon the process was created. It might be hard to get sympathy here considering the amount of bludgeoning you did, and the way you brought it here likely violates WP:CANVASSING. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- I had hatted the comment as canvassing, but User:MisterShiney undid my edit, for no good reason. (MS: Non-admins can close discussions here, there's no restriction on it.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Only because it was up for just over half hour before you slapped it with a canvassing label - incorrect in my opinion, rightly so the user is asking for a second opinion on the actions of an admin which is well within their remit. I am aware of no such policy/guideline that says as a non admin §you are allowed to close a discussion before it has been addressed. Hence the revert. MisterShiney ✉ 23:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hate to disagree with both of you, but non-admin can close discussions. And it was hatted, not closed, something we usually reserve for WP:DENY, offtopic threads or really long evidence. We admin are immune to Jedi mind tricks, so seeing the plea won't poison our minds. Actually, hatting makes it more likely to be read by more people. None of us can resist Pandora's box. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good point, but what does that say about the effectiveness of WP:DENY? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- "We admin are immune to Jedi mind tricks." I made you say that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- That it has limited utility. It's only done to hide the "trophy" of their actions, since it will then always be out of plain sight. It is just to remove the troll's and/or sock's incentive, which is part of why some do lolz. It is a Jedi mind trick that is a little better than not hatting it. The only reason we don't outright delete it is that we want the info in the archive, so we can search for it in the future, if needed. That is my experience anyway, there are some other perspectives and uses, too. I sometimes hat offtopic subthreads, (this subthread might qualify) to keep the continuity of the merits intact. Particularly in long, complicated reports. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good point, but what does that say about the effectiveness of WP:DENY? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
If anyone is interested in the original problem the editor posted about, please note I have posted a comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. -- Dianna (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well posting at AE should solve the problem all right. Sandstein will ban them for life! Kumioko (talk) 10:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough Dennis. Apologies Ken. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
RFC/U for Arzel
There is currently community support for a topic ban for user:Arzel, here. During the topic ban discussion it was suggested that RFC/U might be a good idea. The main issue, editing for the tea party movement, became an WP:Arbitration case. During the workshop, it was also suggested that WP:RFC/U might be a good idea, here. However, while I have engaged him on his talk page, I can't think of an issue in which another editor has engaged with me on an issue. Therefore, I don't think I can meet the minimum standards to file a dispute. However, since there is community support for a ban and because it was suggested this might be a good option, is there anyway to do a RFC/U on user:Arzel without meeting the standard.Casprings (talk) 22:21, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- No. Multiple venues for such arguments are a chronophagous exercise. If ArbCom does not see fit for a sanction on a specific user, then the "multiple lines of attack" system is a tad unfair. Collect (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is a very clear consensus for a topic ban among editors. The edits that are problematic are a much wider range than simply the tea party. One should not ignore community consensus. However, the current case only deals with the tea party. However, Arzel's edits should be examined in full and not just his edits that deal with the tea party. With such a strong community consensus, we have need to explore his edits. Casprings (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- You probably can open an RfC/U without meeting the "minimum standards" if the user agrees to it. In this case, I don't think it's wise though. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why?Casprings (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment I went ahead and started a conversation on it at the Arbitration case, here.
Comment At the Arbitration request page, User:AGK, a member of the arbitration committee responded with, "we are broadly trying to confine our examination to the TPM article and very closely related pages. You are therefore correct to suggest that more general problems with the conduct of a party should be dealt with outwith this case and in the usual venues." If it isn't to be a WP:RFC/U than it should be something. A community consensus that is as large as the one against Arzel cannot simply be ignored.Casprings (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment It has been suggest the WP:RFC/U is the wrong tool to use here. I would think something that did this,
What RfC/U CANNOT do is:
- Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;
What RfC/U CAN do is:
- Allow a number of users to collaborate in discussing wider issues they see with a particular editor's conduct.
- Allow an editor who is the subject of an RFC/U to understand the problems, and change or explain their conduct.
- Allow users to share information which might be relevant for later steps in the dispute resolution process, should that become necessary.
}}
- An RfC is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information.
- An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration.
- See also RfC/U rules.
- would be just what the doctor ordered. Flush out if there are actuall problems, help Arzel understand the problems, and go from there. Am I missing something?Casprings (talk) 12:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism
User:Beseoz contributions are obvious and clear vandalism. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 16:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- WP:AIV is the proper place to report vandalism. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- After a bit of translating, I indef blocked for VOA, but next time, WP:AIV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 17:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
For all the Mothers out there
I'm not sure how much it is celebrated around the world, but here in the United States, today is Mother's Day. I know that this is generally a drama-board reserved for Wikipedia's unpleasant business, but I think that we can make an exception in this instance. It is true that not everyone of us has been blessed with a good mother, but hopefully those of us who have been realize how precious and valuable they are. I trust that all of us would recognize that without mothers, neither Wikipedia or the people who edit here would exist. However, I'd venture to guess that as a group, mothers probably receive very little (if any) recognition from this community (although I would be happy to hear it if I'm wrong about that). In defiance of the usually negative tone of this page, I'd like to wish all of the mothers here a Happy Mother's Day. AutomaticStrikeout ! C Sign AAPT 20:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I hate to put a damper on AS's kind words above, but this article has just sprung up about an event that occured about half an hour ago. Just bringing this up for extra eyes on since this is going to be rapidly evolving. It currently has no content, however, news reports are currently coming in. I'm not tagging it for CSD just yet; I'd be more comfortable with someone else making that call. Ishdarian 20:59, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Doesn't seem like any fatalities yet (thankfully). Why do people need to feel the need to rush and create articles about every little news event before details are known? --MASEM (t) 21:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dropped in a source. Masem, I concur wholeheartedly. Theopolisme (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Don't know, but again why I wish we would adopt of policy of not using a source for at least 6 hours after it is published during current events. It is always a rush of print/wiki/retract/debate, rife with BLP violations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Your desired venue is thataway. ;) Theopolisme (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)For events like this, I'd say: create, place a template saying information will be added once it is confirmed, and FPP for 24 hours. *shrugs* :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- The very people that want the articles to be a real time news channel always outnumber everyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if it even makes sense to consider the possibly of a CSD criteria where after 24 hrs have passed (enough time that impacts of the event should be clear to judge if it is a true event for an encyclopedia or just a story on a slow news day) that such articles on events can be judged. We need to siphon those that want to report on breaking news to Wikinews - it exists for that reason. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ping me if you ever get anything going that will slow down the newsiness of these articles. I hate to image how many times people have been misled when coming here and the version of the story they loaded was in the middle of an edit war with a BLP warrior on these. Full protection with a blank page is better than our current lack of policy on these. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- My point exactly. Enough news article are published that a blank article for a day or two will not negatively impact anyone, really. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- And needless to say, the 'article' was flawed from the start. I've just removed 'mass murder' from 'type' in the infobox. Sheer incompetence... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- My point exactly. Enough news article are published that a blank article for a day or two will not negatively impact anyone, really. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ping me if you ever get anything going that will slow down the newsiness of these articles. I hate to image how many times people have been misled when coming here and the version of the story they loaded was in the middle of an edit war with a BLP warrior on these. Full protection with a blank page is better than our current lack of policy on these. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder if it even makes sense to consider the possibly of a CSD criteria where after 24 hrs have passed (enough time that impacts of the event should be clear to judge if it is a true event for an encyclopedia or just a story on a slow news day) that such articles on events can be judged. We need to siphon those that want to report on breaking news to Wikinews - it exists for that reason. --MASEM (t) 21:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- The very people that want the articles to be a real time news channel always outnumber everyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 21:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorely tempted to send this ridiculous nonsense to AfD. Though I'm becoming a bit jaded lately regarding the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the average Wikipedian lately, and their ability to judge notability and event importance. Tarc (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- That would be a violation of WP:POINT. When 11 people get shot, there will be enough news coverage to create a well-verified and detailed article. There's no problem with creating a placeholder stub early on to start gathering info. Jehochman Talk 22:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- If I feel it is unencyclopedic and not in line with Wikipedia guidelines on notability, it would not be pointy to nominate such a thing. I would be nominating it because it is routine news and not worthy of an encyclopedia, not to make a statement about anything else. Save your finger-waving for someone who'd actually be intimidated by it, hochman. Cause I ain't that guy. Tarc (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, that just means there's lots of primary sources. We should have enduring coverage to assure an event is worthy of an encyclopedic article. When there are just a lot of sources, Wikinews fits that bill perfectly. --MASEM (t) 00:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- That would be a violation of WP:POINT. When 11 people get shot, there will be enough news coverage to create a well-verified and detailed article. There's no problem with creating a placeholder stub early on to start gathering info. Jehochman Talk 22:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that sending it to AFD causes drama. I've already pushed one new article into a redirect to it, and the pace is slow so far, might be better to just ride it out for a day and see how the news cycle runs. If it needs AFD, it is almost better to wait until it isn't fresh news, else someone just recreates the article, and creates drama if you delete it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the problem is- and it's only going to get worse, and should be dealt with on EnWiki sooner than later- is that usually reliable sources (CNN, Fox News, ABC News, etc) jump the gun to get the lead. It's an unfortunate reality in the media these days, that the major outlets value "first" over "fact," but it's not going to get any better. WikiNews is a bit of a mess, but it's a mess that is slowly improving, and with better defined policies on breaking news than we have here, so I think a template that links to the WikiNews article, fully protected for a set time (24-48 hours), and with a message that encourages interested editors to discuss and, more importantly, collect sources on the talk page as events unfold, would be beneficial steps before going "live" with an article. The thing is, in situations like this, you are going to inevitably draw in people who are only interested in the event, and not interested in learning our confusing policies. If nothing else, just being able to avoid the whole constantly repeated discussions about why or why not Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS every single time this happens would be a time-saver, and reduce the headache. Ditch ∝ 00:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS needs to be deprecated immediately as it is no longer accurate, and Wikinews needs to be shut down as it is no longer relevant. It's time to face the fact that Wikipedia does a far better job covering news stories than Wikinews and we need to vocally recognize this state of affairs rather than trying to sweep it under the rug and shift the burden over to the dysfunctional Wikinews site whose only purpose seems to be hosting original research like interviews with fringe politicians and unknown people that the mainstream media won't cover. Viriditas (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would support that, although it would be a hard sell to those newsy that love the drama these articles sometimes create. You could have to carefully craft a criteria for it as well, which isn't as trivial as it sounds. I won't hold my breath, but I strongly support anything that will put the breaks on breaking news articles, so we have time to reflect and cover just the facts, which I think is what we are supposed to be doing to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Viriditas is a bit more harsh in his assessment of WikiNews than I was, but only because I was trying to be nice. I actually whole hardheartedly agree with him, though I am pessimistic that consensus would reflect this view in a discussion. That aside, could the answer simply be that a "reliable" source (regardless of the source) should only be considered "reliable" after a certain amount of time, in order to ensure the vetting process? i.e. a source is not deemed reliable until 24 hours (or some arbitrarily agreed on time frame) following its original post? This would surely be a simple inclusion to the WP:RS policy that would result in much improvement on how we handle breaking news stories. Ditch ∝ 01:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- And just as an aside, after further thought, I think it's a good idea that a source should not be considered reliable (and not just for breaking news), until some time has passed for the author to make retractions or correct mistakes. No one is perfect after all, and don't we expect, occasionally, that, whether it be CNN or a scientific journal, that sometimes mistakes will be made...and shouldn't our policies reflect that admission? Ditch ∝ 01:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- This was the idea behind my previous statement about requiring sources to be "aged" at least 6 hours before use in article that fit the criteria of being "breaking news". I'm thinking that is long enough for most situations, without being an undue burden. But again, I would go for anything that would slow it down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Then I would suggest that the discussion that needs to be had is: What amount of time needs to elapse following the publishing of a source before it can be deemed as "reliable" for inclusion in a Wikipedia article? I am neither skilled nor experienced enough to start that discussion- or even know where to start it- but I think it would be a good starting point to resolve this seemingly unending problem. Would someone ping me if they do this, please? Ditch ∝ 01:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- This was the idea behind my previous statement about requiring sources to be "aged" at least 6 hours before use in article that fit the criteria of being "breaking news". I'm thinking that is long enough for most situations, without being an undue burden. But again, I would go for anything that would slow it down. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's no reason to be polite about the waste of time and resources that Wikinews is. It's worthless and its shuttering will allow the foundation to redirect resources to projects that serve their purpose. As to articles like this, there's no hope of getting it deleted during the news cycle. A spree shooting is hopeless to delete as long as we have run of the mill murders like this, this and this. Resolute 01:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- There would be if there was a BLP-like mandate that allowed quick delete if the source(s) is not of a certain "age." Even with Dennis's (some what conservative, in my view) suggestion of 6 hours, this article about the New Orleans Mother's Day shootings (even though currently it appears legit) would not currently be live on EnWiki. Ditch ∝ 01:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- In truth, I think that simply blames the sources for an editing failure on our end. We shouldn't be claiming news reports as fact ("17 people were shot"), but as a report ("CNN reported that 17 people were shot") until official confirmations occur or the sources settle. But in fluid situations, facts are going to change. Our focus should be on reinforcing that in these articles and avoiding BLP traps. Resolute 02:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- True. But at what point do we stop being an encyclopedia and start being a news aggregate? Or are we both? Ditch ∝ 02:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- In truth, I think that simply blames the sources for an editing failure on our end. We shouldn't be claiming news reports as fact ("17 people were shot"), but as a report ("CNN reported that 17 people were shot") until official confirmations occur or the sources settle. But in fluid situations, facts are going to change. Our focus should be on reinforcing that in these articles and avoiding BLP traps. Resolute 02:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- There would be if there was a BLP-like mandate that allowed quick delete if the source(s) is not of a certain "age." Even with Dennis's (some what conservative, in my view) suggestion of 6 hours, this article about the New Orleans Mother's Day shootings (even though currently it appears legit) would not currently be live on EnWiki. Ditch ∝ 01:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's no reason to be polite about the waste of time and resources that Wikinews is. It's worthless and its shuttering will allow the foundation to redirect resources to projects that serve their purpose. As to articles like this, there's no hope of getting it deleted during the news cycle. A spree shooting is hopeless to delete as long as we have run of the mill murders like this, this and this. Resolute 01:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not only that, but in the end, it is about us managing the information and having a bit more control over what we publish. A delay better allows verification. It isn't about blaming the source, it is about recognizing that the source is first concerned with timeliness, and our job is to reflect on the available information and summarize it, not to simply parrot the latest tidbit. Our timetables are different because our goals are different. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is a lot more work to enforce "no use of <6hr news articles on current events", but rather simply to say, "Okay, we don't encourage you creating new articles on a news event just because it happened but urge caution, but if you do, and the event doesn't show clear importance within 24-48 hrs, it can be (speedily?) deleted." --MASEM (t) 02:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't follow. Could you explain how it would be more trouble to enforce a strict time-based rule on sources use to create an article, rather than an arbitrary one that simply "urges caution" otherwise the article may be deleted? That solves the problem of Transformers articles, how does it help with breaking new stories that are a mess of inaccuracies? Ditch ∝ 03:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The "please don't create until you're sure" is basically the status quo today, with only a bit more formality on sending news events that this is shaping up to be (an unfortunately spat of violence but nothing encyclopedic about it) to deletion, while having a "don't use <6hr sources" would require monitoring, can be easily gamed, and would be subject to a lot of IAR (like in the case of the Boston marathon bombing, where it was clear it was an important event). Basically, the less we tip the boat, the better. --MASEM (t) 03:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is a lot more work to enforce "no use of <6hr news articles on current events", but rather simply to say, "Okay, we don't encourage you creating new articles on a news event just because it happened but urge caution, but if you do, and the event doesn't show clear importance within 24-48 hrs, it can be (speedily?) deleted." --MASEM (t) 02:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not only that, but in the end, it is about us managing the information and having a bit more control over what we publish. A delay better allows verification. It isn't about blaming the source, it is about recognizing that the source is first concerned with timeliness, and our job is to reflect on the available information and summarize it, not to simply parrot the latest tidbit. Our timetables are different because our goals are different. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Viriditas is a bit more harsh in his assessment of WikiNews than I was, but only because I was trying to be nice. I actually whole hardheartedly agree with him, though I am pessimistic that consensus would reflect this view in a discussion. That aside, could the answer simply be that a "reliable" source (regardless of the source) should only be considered "reliable" after a certain amount of time, in order to ensure the vetting process? i.e. a source is not deemed reliable until 24 hours (or some arbitrarily agreed on time frame) following its original post? This would surely be a simple inclusion to the WP:RS policy that would result in much improvement on how we handle breaking news stories. Ditch ∝ 01:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the problem is- and it's only going to get worse, and should be dealt with on EnWiki sooner than later- is that usually reliable sources (CNN, Fox News, ABC News, etc) jump the gun to get the lead. It's an unfortunate reality in the media these days, that the major outlets value "first" over "fact," but it's not going to get any better. WikiNews is a bit of a mess, but it's a mess that is slowly improving, and with better defined policies on breaking news than we have here, so I think a template that links to the WikiNews article, fully protected for a set time (24-48 hours), and with a message that encourages interested editors to discuss and, more importantly, collect sources on the talk page as events unfold, would be beneficial steps before going "live" with an article. The thing is, in situations like this, you are going to inevitably draw in people who are only interested in the event, and not interested in learning our confusing policies. If nothing else, just being able to avoid the whole constantly repeated discussions about why or why not Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS every single time this happens would be a time-saver, and reduce the headache. Ditch ∝ 00:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that sending it to AFD causes drama. I've already pushed one new article into a redirect to it, and the pace is slow so far, might be better to just ride it out for a day and see how the news cycle runs. If it needs AFD, it is almost better to wait until it isn't fresh news, else someone just recreates the article, and creates drama if you delete it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
The article is now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Mother's Day Parade shooting. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The answer to the question of why people rush to create articles is that people rush to read them. Wikipedia exists to serve encyclopedic knowledge to the public. It does so for all topics, recent or not, and no policy prohibits that. The more people are interested, the more people begin to write. There is no policy that says that articles have to be out of date, nor that we should disbelieve reliable sources because they might, possibly, turn out to be wrong. Wnt (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's a pretty rose coloured view given the way the media (of all kinds) initially reported the Boston bombing and the Cleveland kidnappings. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- So, there were errors. We only present a topic as we know it. Guess what, there's probably all kinds of errors in our articles about cancer and aging, errors that it would be really really really nice if somebody could correct, but we can't because science hasn't found them out yet, so we keep spreading the misinformation we have until the situation changes. This is no different. So, every now and then we have to change a statement that so-and-so was the high school shooter to that it was really his brother but he was incorrectly identified by the press. That's a shame, but it's not as bad as not covering what we have when we have it. We don't have a legal or ethical duty to do anything but that. We can't right every wrong, we can't undo when a newspaper incorrectly smears someone; we can only make sure we include the rebuttal when it becomes available. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's interesting that you highlight articles on medical topics, and I agree that it is a fruitful area for comparison. Many of our most experienced and knowledgeable editors working on medical topics recognize that the primary scientific literature is often...less reliable than we would like in its conclusions, and that lay press coverage of medical research or discoveries often ranges from 'somewhat frothy' to 'bats--t insane'. One consequence of this recognition is WP:MEDRS, our widely-applied, widely-accepted guideline for sourcing medical content. When we present something as 'fact' in Wikipedia's voice, we demand very high standards for sourcing: typically peer-reviewed, secondary sources that examine and summarize the breadth of research in an area, rather than single papers. Does that mean that we don't always publish a cutting-edge result as soon as it appears in print? Yep. Does it mean that we don't have to backtrack and remove the vast bulk of cutting-edge claims when they don't pan out, a few months or years later? Yep. Using Wikipedia as a news aggregator is abdicating our editorial responsibility as encyclopedia writers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, absolutely. This conversation with Wnt is picking up a theme we had a few weeks ago at WT:MEDRS. In addition to TOAT's point about it being less likely that we will publish incorrect information we will later have to retract, by waiting until independent secondary sources cover the topic, we are less likely to publish on topics that do not end up demonstrating a lasting impact. Lasting impact cannot be demonstrated by primary sources published the day the event happens. Independent secondary sources with historical distance from the topic can evaluate the primary sources in context, and emphasize which primary sources have proven to be well-accepted and meaningful. I think this is what makes Wikipedia different from WikiNews, and it's an important difference.
Zad68
14:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, absolutely. This conversation with Wnt is picking up a theme we had a few weeks ago at WT:MEDRS. In addition to TOAT's point about it being less likely that we will publish incorrect information we will later have to retract, by waiting until independent secondary sources cover the topic, we are less likely to publish on topics that do not end up demonstrating a lasting impact. Lasting impact cannot be demonstrated by primary sources published the day the event happens. Independent secondary sources with historical distance from the topic can evaluate the primary sources in context, and emphasize which primary sources have proven to be well-accepted and meaningful. I think this is what makes Wikipedia different from WikiNews, and it's an important difference.
- I think it's interesting that you highlight articles on medical topics, and I agree that it is a fruitful area for comparison. Many of our most experienced and knowledgeable editors working on medical topics recognize that the primary scientific literature is often...less reliable than we would like in its conclusions, and that lay press coverage of medical research or discoveries often ranges from 'somewhat frothy' to 'bats--t insane'. One consequence of this recognition is WP:MEDRS, our widely-applied, widely-accepted guideline for sourcing medical content. When we present something as 'fact' in Wikipedia's voice, we demand very high standards for sourcing: typically peer-reviewed, secondary sources that examine and summarize the breadth of research in an area, rather than single papers. Does that mean that we don't always publish a cutting-edge result as soon as it appears in print? Yep. Does it mean that we don't have to backtrack and remove the vast bulk of cutting-edge claims when they don't pan out, a few months or years later? Yep. Using Wikipedia as a news aggregator is abdicating our editorial responsibility as encyclopedia writers. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- So, there were errors. We only present a topic as we know it. Guess what, there's probably all kinds of errors in our articles about cancer and aging, errors that it would be really really really nice if somebody could correct, but we can't because science hasn't found them out yet, so we keep spreading the misinformation we have until the situation changes. This is no different. So, every now and then we have to change a statement that so-and-so was the high school shooter to that it was really his brother but he was incorrectly identified by the press. That's a shame, but it's not as bad as not covering what we have when we have it. We don't have a legal or ethical duty to do anything but that. We can't right every wrong, we can't undo when a newspaper incorrectly smears someone; we can only make sure we include the rebuttal when it becomes available. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's a pretty rose coloured view given the way the media (of all kinds) initially reported the Boston bombing and the Cleveland kidnappings. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Adminstats Update deployed
Some of you have requested that the unblock field be added to adminstats. I am now deploying an update to add this field. I also made several updates to the SQL queries in adminstats that should permanently resolve a bug that arose and went unnoticed. This bug fix corrects several incorrect counts, such as deleted and restored pages. You may see numbers drop, like here in a controlled test. This update will go into effect in the next scheduled run. Enjoy, and please report bugs to me if you find any.—cyberpower ChatOnline 02:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I imagine my account is a good example of how bug-prone large-number, old accounts are. MBisanz talk 03:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- How did you know I was linking to your stats? :p Your the first editor I thought of when doing the controlled test and so naturally I used you as an example. :p—cyberpower ChatOffline 03:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- And another addition for the crats. I added renames.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- User:MBisanz, this applies to you, almost personally.—cyberpower ChatOnline 00:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Why does pages imported say {{{import}}} instead of a number (in my cases, probably zero)? Is this simply in progress?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes Cyberbot is working on it.—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism
What's "Own Research" on this fact?: "Czechia - this wordfirst documented in 1866 (Latest from Prussia. The Mercury, page 4, Saturday 21 July 1866)"?? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Name_of_the_Czech_Republic&action=history Block, please, user User:Yopie for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 13 May 2013
- Finding an example of a word in a source and asserting that this is the 'first documented' usage is original research. As for 'vandalism', read WP:VANDAL - edits made in content disputes aren't vandalism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
1 person - more users
I think, that's users User:Yopie, User:Mewulwe and User:Cimmerian praetor is the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.168.13.98 (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- See above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Above, where I explain that you had posted original research. The reverts were perfectly valid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Ban requested for User:Johnpacklambert
User:Johnpacklambert whose work was instrumental in garnering us such negative press as Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists, Wikipedia’s shame , and Sexism on Wikipedia Is Not the Work of 'a Single Misguided Editor' (where is is mentioned by name), is now edit-warring on Amanda Filipacchi over categories such as Category:American women journalists. (As I read it, that category actually breaks the guidelines laid out in WP:CATEGRS, since gender has no specific relation to the topic, but that's another discussion.) Johnpacklamber has not added Filipacchi to Category:American journalists, but has simply added her to the subcategory. A quick look at Category:American journalists shows that female journalists are generally included in that category as well as the subcategory (Karen Abbott, for example, is the first listing in both categories). This deliberate ghettoization is precisely what caused the issue to erupt into the media in the first place. Johnpacklambert seems unable to (a) get the point, and (b) stay away from Amanda Filipacchi despite the media reports. I propose that Johnpacklambert be banned from adding or removing categories from biographies people living or dead, or making any edits to categories which contain biographies of people living or dead. He would be free to work on categories involving other subjects. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support - as nominator. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Multiple objections 1-I added Filipacchi to Category:American columnists which is a sub-category of Category:American journalists, so the above claims that I have not added Filipacchi to the American journalists category are just plain false. 2-Whether or not Category:American women journalists or its parent Category:Women journalists are legitimate categories is a question that should be considered in Categories for Discussion, not by attempting to target a user psecifically. So I am not "ghetto-izing" Filipacchi, since she is in Category:American columnists which is a sub-cat of Category:American journalists. The exditor is misrepresenting the issues invovled.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Go to Category:American journalists. Amanda Filipacchi is not in it. Yes, she is in Category:American columnists, but she isn't a columnist, she is a novelist. This type of argument from Johnpacklambert is part of the problem. They refuse to "get it". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this fall under WP:BLPBAN, which any administrator can impose to ensure the quality of our biographies of living people? Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Whether Filipacchi's columns for the New York Times makes her a columnist is a possible question, what is 100% clear is that I put Filipacchi is Category:American columnists and then put her in Category:American women journalists. Category:American columnists is a sub-cat of Category:American journalists so all its contents are in that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- On what grounds? The Filipacchi article has clear statements that she writes columns and that she is female. I clearly put her in Category:American columnists and Category:American women journalists. There is some dispute whether this is a truly notable trait of her, but she was clearly in gender-neutral sub-cat so the ghetoization claim is false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The editing and the talk page discussions, and crap like this make this forty year old white male emberassed to be assosciated with this website. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've blanked User:Kauffner's page per WP:BLP which applies on userpages as much as everywhere else. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment If we have Category:American women journalists and do not populate it, people will start claiming "wikipedia has more articles on female pornographic film actors than women journalists" as they have with female pornographic film actors compared to women poets. A good look at what needs to be done to articles can be seen with what I did to the article on Emily Bavar. I added her to Category:American newspapwer reporters and correspondents and also to Category:American women journalists. If people really do not think we should have Category:American women journalists the way to deal with that is through a CfD, not through attempts to attack editors for populating it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
CommentWeak oppose editing an article about a columnist who is repeatedly writing comments about your editing strikes me as a sort of WP:COI "revenge editing". Shamefully, the category system still has not totally resolved its dispute about edits like [3], but I think he should know by now that the consensus is not to dink around with these sex-dependent categories which sooner or later will be dustbinned. There is only so long that we can blame bureaucratic inertia and bad programming for a system where we say that being female deserves a subcategory but not being male. That said, any administrator action that bans or topic-bans this user without quickly determining whether a consensus about the issue exists or directing one to be determined if it does not yet exist would be a mistake. We shouldn't be looking to shoot the messenger here but to fix the problem, and the problem is the lack of clarity about when to sex-separate categories. Wnt (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)- All I did to the article was add Category:American columnists and Category:American women journalists. I did not change the text of the article, nor did I remove Filipacchi from any category at that point. My goal is to expand Category:American women journalists as much as possible to avoid false accusations of wikipedia being sexist by giving more treatment to women in certain occupations that some deem "disreputable" than women in more "reputable" occupations. I do not think this can be said to be "revenge" editing at all, and I think my motivations have been needlessly maligned.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- (ecxN)After those articles, did you really think she was going to have no reaction to adding that category? And out of all the myriad articles on Wikipedia, why did you pick that one to edit? Note that my 'vote' above was not actually to ban, but you do really seem to be poking the hornet's nest on purpose, and it is hard to assume good faith otherwise. Your motivation about respectable versus not may be a well-intentioned response to some other complaint which may well have been less well founded. But current category guidelines call for separate categories for certain professions that have more to do with sex, and you should know by now that that's what people want. So you're editing the article of someone you have a personal dispute with against consensus, and that is a recipe for trouble. If you step back right now maybe you'll get out of this, I don't know. Wnt (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, you removed Filipacchi from Category:American novelists. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Imposing this ban on Johnpacklambert will not address the larger issue, but it may help reduce the risk of even more bad press about how one particular living person is being treated by WP editors. Johnpacklambert will be free to contribute to any discussions about the larger issue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Bad press is a bad argument. According to him he got into this trying to avoid bad press! Our priority needs to be making the articles the best that they can be, including a useful and unbiased category system, and implementing our policies and guidelines fairly, regardless of outside pressures. As long as we know we're right that's what matters. Wnt (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- In fact, the whole tenor of this argument fails. I am the person who put Karen Abbott in Category:American women journalists. However, the nomination is also built on a fauly understanding. Most people in Category:American women journalists are not in Category:American journalists directly, they are like Eve Arnold and in Category:American photojournalists or in Ann-Marie Adams and in Category:American newspaper reporters and correspondents. There are other people in Category:American columnists and in Category:American women journalists such as Cindy Adams. The categorization of Filipacchi was exactly how other people in similar circumstances have been categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support - agree. A serious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that's been ongoing for weeks (another long and unresolved thread at ANI). I'd like to see all categorization of American novelist cease/freeze immediately and allow time to establish consensus. In the meantime, agree completely with Delicious carbuncle. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have not removed people from Category:American journalists to put them in Category:American women journalists. I have just added them to that category. The discussion of Category:American women novelists closed to keep the category as a non-diffusing category. No where has any consens been established to get rid of these categories. Category:American women journalists was created in 2010 by a rename from Category:American female journalists. No one has objected to the category, and considering that wikipedia has been falsely accused of having extrmeely few articles on women in some professions, it makes sense to seek to fully populate such categories where they exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a tad silly on all sides. Only a few people are still stuck on this whole category issue and all are being petty. Such a broad ban would be unduly punitive for something so trivial. We should just full-protect Filipacchi's page for a month or so and then see what happens after it expires.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. JPL has done some good work in his gnome niche regarding categories. Rather than banning him from this area in which he has done some of his best work, might I suggest that we give him a 10- to 30-day timeout from editing categories instead, with the further instructions to stay away from the "American novelists" category and its subcategories (and other gender-related subcategories, too) until consensus on point is determined? A semi-permanent ban on all biographical category work seems too harsh by far. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Read the proposal. It is not a complete ban on category work, only on category work involving people (living or dead). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, sir, I did read it, and I apologize if my comment above was not specific enough. To be precise, a semi-permanent ban on all biographical category work seems too harsh by far. I have amended my comment above (in bold) so that my meaning is clear. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Read the proposal. It is not a complete ban on category work, only on category work involving people (living or dead). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose especially given the context of the nomination, which is deeply flawed. As noted, JPL added Filipacchi to both a gendered sub-cat of journalists, and a non-gendered sub-cat: Category:American columnists. Thus, this category work was completely in line with current guidance and current policy per WP:EGRS. This is a massive waste of time. It is true, JPL was amiss in the previous days, but he now understands the guidance in place and recent edits I've seen him make have cleaved to policy completely. The nominator, Delicious Carbunkle, obviously doesn't understand how diffusing categories work, and that Category:American columnists is diffusing on Category:American journalists. This nomination would have been laughable a month ago, and it should be laughable today. This is standard, by-the-book categorization efforts. Now, it is debateable whether Filipacchi is indeed a journalist, and the cats have for now been removed - but that is really besides the point. DC is making a charge of ghettoization, which is PROVABLY FALSE. Finally, this whole post is at the wrong forum - it should be at ANI - if someone wants to move it please be my guest.
- To be clear - if we want to fix the ghettoization problem at wikipedia, JPL is going to be one of the important players in that effort. I don't see any of you above signing up to recategorize thousands of bios. He is, frankly put, a categorizing machine. This proposed ban, on specious/false/bogus/invented/not true/totally fake/imaginary/misguided grounds is quite ridiculous, and I can see a WP:Boomerang swinging back to DC for wasting people's time on this. If DC was really concerned with ghettoization, they would be de-ghettoizing people instead of bringing lame complaints to AN. Look at DC's edit history - I don't see any de-ghettoization. If you look at JPL, he has categorized hundreds of bios in the past few days - for example look at his work on the American women poets' category. This nomination is flawed at the heart.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support. This categorization [4] is simply inexcusable, and demonstrates a fundamental lack of competence. If he is "a categorizing machine," he's been improperly programmed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- So now someone wants to ban me because I categorized someone in a category that exists based on the opening line "[name redacted per BLP -HW] (born June 8, 1958) is an American singer and pornographic actress." So now for adding someone to Category:American female pornographic actors I should be banned. This does not even make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- support trout for Hullaballoo for tragic misinterpretation of history. How come you aren't bringing out the pitchforks for the original editor, who did this [5] in December? Now, JPL should perhaps be chastised for not verifying sources more carefully, but if the lede says (and has SAID SINCE DECEMBER) that she's a porn actress, shall we string him up? Categories are supposed to be based on the article. We should also probably string up Hullaballoo for not noticing this BLP violation in the lede, that, again, was there since December. I recommend a wet, and juicy trout across the cheek of Hullaballoo for bringing a silly diff to this discussion that was not at all the fault of the accused and has nothing to do with the accusation at hand.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- What a fine display of blithering idiocy. The claim that the BLP subject is a "pornographic actress" was unsourced, and an obvious BLP violation. That JPL not only did not remove such an obvious BLP violation on sight was bad enough, but that he went on to repeat and reinforce it, in violation of both the category guideline and BLP policy requirement that "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources" is exceptionally poor editing. That JPL has not once but twice today repeated the unsourced, false and defamatory statement, including the name of the living person involved (which I have redacted) shows a lack of appreciation for basic BLP requirements. JPL, it is your fault that you violated BLP policy by categorizing an article subject in a defamatory fashion based on a claim that conspicuously not only lacked reliable sources, but lacked any sources at all. That you won't accept responsibility for such inappropriate behavior is clear evidence that you shouldn't be editing BLPs at all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hullaballoo has outdone themselves with a wonderful display lack of reading, googling, and basic internet skills. A few seconds googling and I found a clip, from Scorned 2, which the actress in question starred in: "Description: (name redacted to avoid BLP violations!) naked showing her huge fake breasts and booty while having hot sex with some guy in various poses. From Scorned 2." So, well, did she do X-rated movies, or just softcore porn? That's a debate for another board. But she has clearly starred in a number of movies, naked, having fake or real sex onscreen. So Hullaballoo, are you willing to take back your vicious attacks? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- What a fine display of blithering idiocy. The claim that the BLP subject is a "pornographic actress" was unsourced, and an obvious BLP violation. That JPL not only did not remove such an obvious BLP violation on sight was bad enough, but that he went on to repeat and reinforce it, in violation of both the category guideline and BLP policy requirement that "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources" is exceptionally poor editing. That JPL has not once but twice today repeated the unsourced, false and defamatory statement, including the name of the living person involved (which I have redacted) shows a lack of appreciation for basic BLP requirements. JPL, it is your fault that you violated BLP policy by categorizing an article subject in a defamatory fashion based on a claim that conspicuously not only lacked reliable sources, but lacked any sources at all. That you won't accept responsibility for such inappropriate behavior is clear evidence that you shouldn't be editing BLPs at all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The edit was a good faith attempt to reflect the lead in categorization. It is not my fault that the lead was faulty. I did not change the lead. I just changed the categorization to reflect it. This has gone beyond ludicroous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Looking over her credits, I imagine at best the change to the lede was an unfair generalization of her work and a technical BLP violation, rather than an egregious falsehood. One film where she had the lead role was categorized as "softcore" and most of the films have the kind of provocative titles that suggest, even if they are not strictly pornographic, that they are close enough for most to consider them porn. She undoubtedly specializes in erotica.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- So this is not even as clear cut a case as some have made it out. I have to admit that if I had read the actual titles, I would probably have decided that the ones I knew were not pronographic, and reassigned her, but I figured whoever wrote the lead knew what they were talking about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I agree. Why are we stringing up JPL for this? It isn't even clear if it was a BLP violation, and even if it was, it was clearly an honest mistake. If we start banning people for making good faith edits that violate BLP, then we should ban countless users, not just JPL. Asarelah (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- So this is not even as clear cut a case as some have made it out. I have to admit that if I had read the actual titles, I would probably have decided that the ones I knew were not pronographic, and reassigned her, but I figured whoever wrote the lead knew what they were talking about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Looking over her credits, I imagine at best the change to the lede was an unfair generalization of her work and a technical BLP violation, rather than an egregious falsehood. One film where she had the lead role was categorized as "softcore" and most of the films have the kind of provocative titles that suggest, even if they are not strictly pornographic, that they are close enough for most to consider them porn. She undoubtedly specializes in erotica.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- support trout for Hullaballoo for tragic misinterpretation of history. How come you aren't bringing out the pitchforks for the original editor, who did this [5] in December? Now, JPL should perhaps be chastised for not verifying sources more carefully, but if the lede says (and has SAID SINCE DECEMBER) that she's a porn actress, shall we string him up? Categories are supposed to be based on the article. We should also probably string up Hullaballoo for not noticing this BLP violation in the lede, that, again, was there since December. I recommend a wet, and juicy trout across the cheek of Hullaballoo for bringing a silly diff to this discussion that was not at all the fault of the accused and has nothing to do with the accusation at hand.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, this doesn't appear to raise to a level needing a ban. Diffrent choices can make things improve but banning is way over the top. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Let me try this one more time Category:American women journalists has existed since May 29, 2010, and existed before that under a different name. No one has ever proposed it be deleted. Filipacchi was put in Category:American columnists, a sub-cat of Category:American journlalists and then in Category:American women journalists. Only the false claims that she was not in a gender neutral part of the tree even made this possible actionable. If someone does not like Category:American women journalists they are free to try to delete it at a CfD, but they should not try to ban editors for adding people to it. Considering Filipacchi's columns have been the focus on multiple discussions here, and seem to be the most important thing on many people's minds, it made sense to me that they would be enough to make her notable as a columnist. I have admitted I was wrong, and removed both categories, however people now want to punish me for that, although I would say the first user to join in on this just wants to punish me for other things, and has been overruled twice along other lines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- And let me try once more to to get the point across. Aside from the other things that you did, you also removed Filipacchi from [[:Category:American novelists]. Do you not recall how all of this started? I have no idea why you think it is a good idea for you of all people to be doing anything with that article, but if you can't stop yourself, you need to be stopped in some other way. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Do you realize, DC, that Filipacchi remains in Category:20th-century American novelists, which is a DIFFUSING SUBCATEGORY of Category:American novelists? Do you understand that every novelist south of F has already already been moved in the same way? If you want to stop this, the venue is CFD - try to delete the category, or at least have it rescoped to be non-diffusing. Or, start the RFC everyone has been talking about. But banning an editor for diffusing a cat? This a witchhunt, and you have a massively flawed argument that doesn't prove he's a witch! Your nomination is, seriously, laughable, and belies your admitted lack of understanding of the category system. This is like Monty Python "burn him, he's a witch!!!" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- You can keep telling me how categories work and I will keep telling you I understand what you are saying. And I do. You may have an inkling by now that the current way that categories work is not working for readers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- JPL has been asked for weeks to slow down and to wait until consensus is established. I agree that categories are not working for readers but we haven't been able to discuss in a broad sense what to do because JPL and others have taken it upon themselves to solve WP's woman problem under the guise of diffusion in the meantime by emptying the American novelist category, which in my mind is equally sexist. Until we have a strong and broad consensus to the contrary, all American novelists should be kept in the American novelist category and not diffused out. Moreover, JPL has made similar mistakes in regards to adding subcats based on reading the lead of an article (will add diffs tomorrow if required). WP is not a source and though the other instances I've seen have been far less egregious, they show a pattern of carelessness. If he won't stop, and he appears to still be editing despite this thread, then, yes, a temporary ban is a good temporary solution. We really need to consider the readers. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi TK. What exactly are you doing to consider the readers? What productive proposals do you have? Please don't say "keep novelists in American novelists", as before this whole thing started, there were 3,000 novelists who weren't in Category:American novelists. What were you doing about the deeply flawed category system back then, before this all came to light? were you actively moving bios up from genres to Category:American novelists? Probably not.
- Secondly, what do you mean by consensus? You keep on saying this, in various forums - at ANI you asked that I be topic banned until "consensus" formed and asked that all categorization stop - but you never answered the question - consensus on what, and what categorization should stop? Where do you see lack of consensus? All I see is a few people who don't understand diffusion fighting against a well-formed set of diffusing categories. The avenue - CFD - remains open to those who oppose - but no-one has pursued that. So far, I also don't see much energy around the proposed RFC. If there's no RFC, and there's no CFD, what consensus are we supposed to wait for, and which activities should be excluded in the meantime?
- Secondly, you state that JPL is trying to solve a "woman" problem - actually he's just trying to correctly categorize people - including filling up gendered cats when they exist. What basis do you have for using the term "sexist" here - and I remind you, sexism means discriminating against someone based on their gender. Can you give some hard, precise, specific, detailed evidence of something JPL has done in the past few days (ignoring the pre-media-mess, where JPL was indeed IMHO categorizing incorrectly) - but can you provide more recent diffs that show that his edits discriminate negatively against a BLP? Please provide diffs, or stop making baseless, false, misguided, untrue accusations. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- JPL has been asked for weeks to slow down and to wait until consensus is established. I agree that categories are not working for readers but we haven't been able to discuss in a broad sense what to do because JPL and others have taken it upon themselves to solve WP's woman problem under the guise of diffusion in the meantime by emptying the American novelist category, which in my mind is equally sexist. Until we have a strong and broad consensus to the contrary, all American novelists should be kept in the American novelist category and not diffused out. Moreover, JPL has made similar mistakes in regards to adding subcats based on reading the lead of an article (will add diffs tomorrow if required). WP is not a source and though the other instances I've seen have been far less egregious, they show a pattern of carelessness. If he won't stop, and he appears to still be editing despite this thread, then, yes, a temporary ban is a good temporary solution. We really need to consider the readers. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The categories were working just fine and dandy for the readers for years until that stupid newspaper article misrepresented them and started all this ridiculous drama. And besides, even if the category system is fundamentally flawed, that's still no reason to ban Lambert for making good faith edits. Asarelah (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good faith edits to the biography of the person who wrote some those articles? Good faith but incorrect categorizations as a jounalist and a columnist? Good faith removal of the very category which is was at the heart of the first op-ed? No, I'm not suggesting banning JPL for those particular edits, but for the complete lack of judgment that they demonstrate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Good faith but incorrect"? She's already in Category:20th-century American novelists, which excludes her being in the parent category of Category:American novelists. Category:American columnists is a subcategory of Category:American journalists, and while it is clear you disagree with that category, her own article says she writes columns and thus the category is not unreasonable. JPL's edits were not incorrect, there were perfectly reasonable. And furthermore, even if JPL's edits were wrong, that alone isn't a valid reason to ban him in light of all of his other perfectly good contributions. Since when do we allow concerns about controversial press to guide our policies on Wikipedia? By that logic we should take out all the sexual pictures. Asarelah (talk) 04:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Good faith edits to the biography of the person who wrote some those articles? Good faith but incorrect categorizations as a jounalist and a columnist? Good faith removal of the very category which is was at the heart of the first op-ed? No, I'm not suggesting banning JPL for those particular edits, but for the complete lack of judgment that they demonstrate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Do you realize, DC, that Filipacchi remains in Category:20th-century American novelists, which is a DIFFUSING SUBCATEGORY of Category:American novelists? Do you understand that every novelist south of F has already already been moved in the same way? If you want to stop this, the venue is CFD - try to delete the category, or at least have it rescoped to be non-diffusing. Or, start the RFC everyone has been talking about. But banning an editor for diffusing a cat? This a witchhunt, and you have a massively flawed argument that doesn't prove he's a witch! Your nomination is, seriously, laughable, and belies your admitted lack of understanding of the category system. This is like Monty Python "burn him, he's a witch!!!" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. When you see reasons in support like the one raised by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, there is no case. While JPL and I commonly have different positions, he still does offer valid points in a lot of discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Just why do you think that an editor who ignores the requirement that categorization, especially potentially defamatory categorization, be based in reliable sources, per both policy and guideline, is editing "validly" or appropriately? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The original attack ignores the fact that we have the article Women in journalism and media professions, so we clearly have fulfilled the having a parent article requirement for having Category:American women journalists. People are still free to nominate the category for deletion, and argue why it should or should not exist, but it seems there are valid reasons to have the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Question Does it have any bearing on this discussion that a-the person who brought the complaint did not discuss the issue at all with me before bringing the complaint, b-I have since reverted my edits removing Filipachi from both Category:American women journalists and Category:American columnists, c-I brought up the issue of whether Filipacchi is indeed a journalists for disucssion on her talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The brouhaha and ballyhoo regarding this whole escapade has escalated wildly out of control. This, along with the [[matching AN/I case by Tarc (which failed miserably, and was subsequently Miszabotted after 10 days) really shows how this has gotten out of hand. As an uninvolved editor, I am particularly appalled. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Strongest Possible Oppose What happened to assuming good faith, people? Why is Lambert being scapegoated for all the negative publicity surrounding Category:American women novelists? It was a clear hatchet job done by idiot reporters who have no idea how subcategories on Wikipedia work and wanted to do a little muckraking by making baseless accusations of sexism against Wikipedia. To accuse Lambert and anyone else who put women int that category of "deliberate ghettoization" is to show that not only do you not assume good faith, which is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia, but that you also don't even understand how categories work! If someone is in a subcategory, then they don't go into the parent category, because the subcategory is PART of the parent category. I made the same mistake years ago as a new editor when I started adding people in Category:Native American leaders to Category:Native American people, and it was explained to me and I have been pruning off subcategories since. How can anyone call putting women into gendered subcategories "ghettoization" when the whole reason we even HAVE those gendered subcats is to direct people to articles specifically about women? ITS FOR WOMEN'S STUDIES! Lambert is a good editor who has made excellent contributions, and this is absolutely ridiculous! Asarelah (talk) 03:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose So basically you're saying that he should be banned for putting specific sub-categories in an article, but not also putting every single parent category into the article, which would make categories useless? Just stop, DC. You're wasting everyone's time here. SilverserenC 03:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose I have often disagreed strongly with many of JPL's edits and opinions in category world. So what? He acts in good faith, explains his actions and works in a collegial fashion. That individuals inside and outside have interpreted his actions negatively is not a justification for a topic ban or any other such punitive action. Alansohn (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose as per above. Lambert's edits have been clearly good faith attempts to deal with what is apparently an intractable and growing problem. I'm strongly tempted to send Wikipedia:Categorization to MFD if all it gets us is this drama. Hardly worth it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support: I can see this isn't going to be successful at this point, but interacting with JPL on this whole novelists incident has soured me on editing lately. His obsession with screwing with the Filipacchi article -- even coming back yesterday again to add her to "American Women Journalists"??? -- as well as on articles on obscure female writers I have written, has greatly upset me. I tried to maintain good humor in the face of his uncivil refusal to see the problems he was causing and still continuing to create new categories and categorize women (or men when necessary) in them during the heat of the controversy. He is not collegial - he's stubborn, and refuses rational requests to delay controversial edits. That's why his behavior has been extensively written about in the press -- something extremely rare to see happen. I even got dragged by him to ANI for calling out his bullshit. Of course nothing happened to me there, but the lack of any admins with the balls to put a stop to this with at least a stern warning bummed me out. The proposal here is not radical, its a limited editing ban. Any rational manager of editors would tell JPL to stay away from this area for a while. When respected users like User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz are supporting a ban for BLP violations in the midst of this, and gets ignored, I don't know what else to say. I guess editing categories is such a sub-specialty around here that few admins, or editors generally, care. I guess I'll stop caring too, since I hadn't in the last 4 years I've been here, and nothing happened when I tried.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Looking over the admin noticeboard, it would seem that you, Milowent, I can only conclude that even if JPL was in the wrong, you were out of line and he was right to call you out for it. We don't empty categories that are under discussion, and we certainly don't call the previous editor the "He-Man Women Hater's Club president", especially when he did nothing more than add in the category Category:American novelists. This only serves to strengthen my conclusion that this call for a ban is unfair, based on personal conflicts rather than valid reason, and is serving to scapegoat JPL for bad publicity. Asarelah (talk) 14:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: It does not seem to be a good idea to have women's categories that correspond only indirectly with gender-neutral categories. Having a woman columnist in "American female journalists" but not "American journalists" creates the impression of institutionalised sexism, even if it can be shown that male columnists, too, would only be in the "American columnists" subcategory of "American journalists", rather than in the parent category. At this point, Wikipedia must care about appearances on this issue, as appearances define thinking for contributors and readers alike. To anyone not familiar with the intricacies of the category tree, it simply looks like institutionalised sexism if a woman is in "American female journalists" but not also in "American journalists". The solution may be to rely less on genre categories for diffusion, but to prefer time-based (birth date-based) subcategories instead; and if a genre-based subcategory is unavoidable, then a directly corresponding women's category should be created too. The same applies to subcategories based on ethnicity, sexual orientation and religion, where realities and appearances can be equally damning. Andreas JN466 13:41, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This looks like a political wrestling match. Those voting to ban seem to be searching for more reasons as if the nominator's reason isn't strong enough. I could go on but others above me have said it much better. —Soap— 14:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: It seems to me there are two issues being discussed here - one is User:Johnpacklambert's behaviour and the other is the wider issue of gender subcategories. This is not the place for the latter discussion. I think User:Johnpacklambert would be well advised to avoid moving any biographical articles into gender subcategories for a while. But equally it's important that we don't allow trial-by-media to sway our judgement. Wikipedia's guidelines are, as they should be, decided by consensus and not by media lobbying. We do need to establish a clearer position on gender subcategories and I have my own view on what that position should be, but meanwhile the existing guidelines stand and to penalise an editor for trying to implement them would be nonsensical. WaggersTALK 14:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Prefer a voluntary stop but could support a 1 week ban from categorizing related to gender, I see a request by those who contend that the system is "not working" to start discussion of solution(s) -- they should start those now and Lambert should step back because he is being asked to. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The basic fact is that categories should reflect articles. In fact, if something is mentioned in the lead, it should be categorized. People should stop trying to shot the messenger. If people have put things in the lead that do not belong there, go after them. The fact of the matter is I have been attacked on multiple occasions for removing categorization that has no mention anywhere in the article. There is no justification for attacking me for categorizing things that are in the lead. If you disagree with the lead and the categorization that comes from it, you are free to edit these things. But there is no reason to attack someone for following the lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. JPL has been following our guidelines in these matters, such as they are. I prefer that category policy not be made to fit the whims of a certain New York Times op-ed writer, who must remain nameless lest I unleash another another torrent of abuse like the one above: crap, embarrassment, etc. May I suggest that there is someone who can benefit from reading WP:CIVIL? Kauffner (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose in the name of reason; how fundamentally detrimental to the project is it? Bytes of discussion with no convincing arguments in my -impartial but pretty irrelevant- book... Basket Feudalist 17:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Is User:Isis really banned?
A thread at the help desk brings up the question of what ever happened to User:Isis, who is currently listed as "banned by Jimbo Wales" on her talk page. Following the "decision" link, I see nothing about a "ban", just a block, which apparently resulted from a run of the mill instance of making legal threats. [6] I didn't read Jimbo's talk page discussion, but it strikes me that modern policy is that she should be eligible to be unbanned any time she retracts the threat, and for that matter, that due to limits on legal filings the matter is by now unactionable anyway, so the legal threat is resolved and her block should therefore be over per WP:NLT.
I don't know her or if she would ever come back (or has under some other name) but I think it would be nice if you could update the page with some softer description of her status, whatever you think it should be. If you decide I'm right about this one, I bet there are quite a few other users from that time period who deserve similar reconsideration. Wnt (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- The last edit from that account was 3 February 2003. 10 years ago. Why do we care? Has the person who used that account asked that we reverse the block? Is some trouble being caused by ancient blocks? I find it highly likely the person created another account if s/he wanted to contribute. --auburnpilot talk 22:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- (ec)The reason why I care is that somebody on the help desk asked who is the author of the Davy Crockett article, and gets answered that the person is banned from Wikipedia. Who knows how often this happens. It doesn't look good for us when you look up a random person from long ago and they're likely to be banned now. If it doesn't matter that she's banned, surely it shouldn't matter if she's unbanned, right? The default state for Wikipedians should be unbanned, not banned, especially when by all appearances they never were banned. If it matters to keep track of these things then it matters to be right. To be clear, if you don't want the work, I would be more than happy if you could make a policy that everybody banned 10 years ago is now unbanned across the board. Wnt (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. The default state for banned or blocked accounts is banned or blocked. We don't lift these just for fun but because there is a legitimate reason to do so. There is no such reason here. --auburnpilot talk 23:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Considering the ban even predates NLT, it's probably just best to leave it as is. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ha! Yes, he/she is "really" banned...the old fashioned way, no less. There's a lot of interesting reading in those old ban logs, but, quite honestly, if Isis wanted to come back after this length of time, I don't think any admin would really object at this point. Best to leave it alone; they've probably been back in some form or fashion for a while now if they truly valued editing. Ditch ∝ 00:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Meh. If I remember correctly, at least one user in the Wikipedia-made WP:USERNAME video was blocked indefinitely a few years ago. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's always fun to go back to your RFA and see the name of a blocked/banned editor under "Support". Moreso to see them under "Oppose". UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have more banned users under support than oppose, so what does that say? ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- It says to me "thank god I didn't support" :) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have more banned users under support than oppose, so what does that say? ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 13:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Did you guys block people who opposed you? :) Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, are we not supposed to do that? Shit. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's always fun to go back to your RFA and see the name of a blocked/banned editor under "Support". Moreso to see them under "Oppose". UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Proposed topic ban - User:Gaba p and User:Wee Curry Monster on the Falkland Islands
I propose that User:Gaba p and User:Wee Curry Monster be topic banned from any topic concerning the Falkland Islands. To see why take a look at the history of Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, its talk page and my talkpage. By their constant back and forth they have made discussion to reach a consensus almost impossible - indeed other editors have walked away from the discussion due to these editors. Both appear to see nothing wrong with their actions and entirely blame other parties yet the article history clearly shows that both parties have been acting in ways likely to provoke the other. I recently protected that article in an attempt to force discussion on talk page. The most notable response to this was comments on other's editing and discussion styles. Now the disagreement has spilled over onto Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833). I think it's impossible to reach a consensus on these issues while these two editors are involved and so propose a topic ban. These two editors are the main protagonists although others have also not helped. However as a first step I suggest topic banning these two users and so see if the other editors can discuss things more amicably without the disruption caused by these editors. Dpmuk (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sadly Support These two users have a long history both here and at AN/I regarding their feud over the Falkland Islands. Topic Bans have been proposed before, but they have all fallen through. This time I believe the disruption has gone too far. Other editors are now becoming discouraged and concensus cannot be reached. This nonsense has gone far enough. If nothing is done, the situation will grow worse and worse. We've seen it in the past, and it will undoubtedly happen again if any administrative action is not taken. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 12:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support. It should help matters, but sadly I think that a couple of others will probably need to be topic-banned in the long run to stop this nonsense. Number 57 12:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Should help, and should send a message to any others. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support. If there is any way to avoid another (potential?) edit-war, it's because two individual editors perhaps would want to compromise? Don't see much sign of it with them two. Basket Feudalist 17:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTHERE
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is apparent that User:Jay Myers (Hurricane Jay) is not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Out of over 3000 edits, exactly one is to article space, one is to a category, and three are to a user talk page. All the rest are to his own userpage, which consists of an enormous and ever-evolving autobiography and the largest collection of userboxes I've ever seen. There is also an exhaustive set of URLs and external links to Facebook profiles, etc. I posit that this person is WP:NOTHERE. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the big whoop, sorry. Since he isn't vandalizing or adding bad content, I don't see why we can't let him do whatever he wants on his userpage pbp 03:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- wow. Is there a barnstar we can give him for most userboxen? Give that man an award. However, I do Think that page and the subs could be safely and brutally trimmed, as he is going beyond the bounds of what A user page is supposed to me. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I seem to recall WP:MFD per WP:UPNO in such situations. But that may be redundant given we're already here. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Has anyone read WP:NOTHERE? Is Wikipedia now a vanity page webhost and social networking site? Yes, UPNO would seem to apply as well. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 04:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- We should not take an action on a page that harms no one, does not offend, and is a small zen garden in someone's mind. Should we encourage this sort of thing? No. Should we go over and tramp on a sand castle just because we can? No. If you act to wipe this page out, only reveal your own nature you will.→StaniStani 04:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- That might be an appropriate attitude for a free web host, but Wikipedia isn't that. These resources have been made available to us so that we can develop an encyclopedia. It should be obvious from an editor's contribs that the editor is here to that work, and if it's not obvious after 3,000+ edits over 2 1/2 years, intervention is required. Wikipedia's resources are limited and we should not make Wikipedia a hospitable environment for stuff like what that editor is doing.
Zad68
15:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- That might be an appropriate attitude for a free web host, but Wikipedia isn't that. These resources have been made available to us so that we can develop an encyclopedia. It should be obvious from an editor's contribs that the editor is here to that work, and if it's not obvious after 3,000+ edits over 2 1/2 years, intervention is required. Wikipedia's resources are limited and we should not make Wikipedia a hospitable environment for stuff like what that editor is doing.
- We should not take an action on a page that harms no one, does not offend, and is a small zen garden in someone's mind. Should we encourage this sort of thing? No. Should we go over and tramp on a sand castle just because we can? No. If you act to wipe this page out, only reveal your own nature you will.→StaniStani 04:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Has anyone read WP:NOTHERE? Is Wikipedia now a vanity page webhost and social networking site? Yes, UPNO would seem to apply as well. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 04:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- I seem to recall WP:MFD per WP:UPNO in such situations. But that may be redundant given we're already here. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- wow. Is there a barnstar we can give him for most userboxen? Give that man an award. However, I do Think that page and the subs could be safely and brutally trimmed, as he is going beyond the bounds of what A user page is supposed to me. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Take it to MFD - its unlikely to involve any sanctions but it will send a clear message 'this is not what wikipedia is for'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- The age on other planets is cool. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)