Niteshift36 (talk | contribs) |
WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) →PC RfC 2013: No |
||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
:::I would think deciding whether or not to use one specific facet of PC is a little bit less of a big deal than deciding if we were going to use it at all, and those discussions were deemed not to be important enough. As I recall I tried to make the point that a watchlist notice does not reach the IP users who would be affected by PC but that still didn't cut it. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC) |
:::I would think deciding whether or not to use one specific facet of PC is a little bit less of a big deal than deciding if we were going to use it at all, and those discussions were deemed not to be important enough. As I recall I tried to make the point that a watchlist notice does not reach the IP users who would be affected by PC but that still didn't cut it. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::I don't disagree with that. For all the fire and brimstone pending changes and even protection in general aren't a big deal to most people. Most editors and most readers go on their merry little way without running into much protection, especially not protection that PC2 will affect. ~ <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small></font> 22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
::::I don't disagree with that. For all the fire and brimstone pending changes and even protection in general aren't a big deal to most people. Most editors and most readers go on their merry little way without running into much protection, especially not protection that PC2 will affect. ~ <font color="#F09">Amory</font><font color="#555"><small> ''([[User:Amorymeltzer|u]] • [[User talk:Amorymeltzer|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Amorymeltzer|c]])''</small></font> 22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::I don't think that this discussion is anything close to important enough for a sitenotice. Sitenotices are normally displayed to ''readers'' unless you take steps to limit it to logged-in users only. We might want a sitenotice up to announce [[WP:VisualEditor]] and [[WP:Flow]], but "shall we occasionally use this particular detail of this particular feature" isn't IMO even close to important enough to put something in front of non-editors. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== Requested redirect == |
== Requested redirect == |
Revision as of 01:38, 25 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).
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/1ball.svg/40px-1ball.svg.png)
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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/2ball.svg/40px-2ball.svg.png)
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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/3_billiard_ball.svg/40px-3_billiard_ball.svg.png)
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.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a7/4ball.svg/40px-4ball.svg.png)
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 117 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)
Comment: The RfC starter, Youprayteas, did not include any sources when starting his request. Multiple new sources have been added since February. Bogazicili (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?
(Initiated 90 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 71 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 68 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)
- Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" & "part 3: hate symbol database" remain open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there
19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 67 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 67 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 64 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:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section
(Initiated 58 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [1] [2]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals
(Initiated 43 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 42 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 38 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles
(Initiated 35 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Russian Civil War#RFC: Choose an infobox
(Initiated 23 days ago on 22 May 2024) I have ended this RFC a week early per WP:RFCEND. Because of a history of edit warring over this, I would like an uninvolved editor to provide a clear statement about what editors prefer (even if it's not one of the 'official' two options). Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:27, 13 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 | 6 | 17 | 6 | 29 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 10 | 19 | 29 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities
(Initiated 72 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 68 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 68 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 68 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Volodimerovichi family
(Initiated 67 days ago on 8 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers
(Initiated 63 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 62 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 60 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Category:Pocatello Army Air Base Bombardiers football seasons
(Initiated 51 days ago on 24 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people
(Initiated 49 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 49 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau
(Initiated 47 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 45 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 38 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:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD
(Initiated 59 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)
- Fwiw, one more comment in discussion since this comment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles
(Initiated 43 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS
(Initiated 17 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Requested move 29 May 2024
(Initiated 16 days ago on 29 May 2024) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josethewikier (talk • contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 June#X (social network)
(Initiated 11 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
PC RfC 2013
The community at large should be made aware of Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013, either by sitenotice or through bot notification of all past participants. WP:CD is insufficient given both the established controversy and scope of discussion. — C M B J 11:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's already being advertised through a watchlist notice. That's usually the highest level of advertising we give policy discussions - I can't remember one being advertised by sitenotice. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I checked the revision history of Sitenotice and you're evidently right in that there haven't been any policy discussions published through it, although its talk page is home to a a very similar exchange. However, I do recall that the original PC RFC had over 650 participants and the SOPA RFC had more than 1,800 — and I could've sworn that at least one of those two received advertisement to all logged in users. In any event, I'm still inclined to stick by the suggestion that past participants be notified if nothing else, though in all fairness the debate's (affirmative) ramifications are pertinent to virtually all users. — C M B J 13:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- Given the problems with the SOPA rfc, not so sure thats a good idea. Given its irregularities. It would be better not to have a repeat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- I checked the revision history of Sitenotice and you're evidently right in that there haven't been any policy discussions published through it, although its talk page is home to a a very similar exchange. However, I do recall that the original PC RFC had over 650 participants and the SOPA RFC had more than 1,800 — and I could've sworn that at least one of those two received advertisement to all logged in users. In any event, I'm still inclined to stick by the suggestion that past participants be notified if nothing else, though in all fairness the debate's (affirmative) ramifications are pertinent to virtually all users. — C M B J 13:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- During big policy RFCs I have put together, including the 2011/2012 PC RFCs it was made clear to me that a policy change that effects every single user on Wikipedia is not sufficiently important for the sacrosanct site notice. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's a not-unreasonable fear that over-using the sitenotice will limit its effectiveness. But this is kind of a big deal, isn't it? Hrm. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would think deciding whether or not to use one specific facet of PC is a little bit less of a big deal than deciding if we were going to use it at all, and those discussions were deemed not to be important enough. As I recall I tried to make the point that a watchlist notice does not reach the IP users who would be affected by PC but that still didn't cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with that. For all the fire and brimstone pending changes and even protection in general aren't a big deal to most people. Most editors and most readers go on their merry little way without running into much protection, especially not protection that PC2 will affect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that this discussion is anything close to important enough for a sitenotice. Sitenotices are normally displayed to readers unless you take steps to limit it to logged-in users only. We might want a sitenotice up to announce WP:VisualEditor and WP:Flow, but "shall we occasionally use this particular detail of this particular feature" isn't IMO even close to important enough to put something in front of non-editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- I would think deciding whether or not to use one specific facet of PC is a little bit less of a big deal than deciding if we were going to use it at all, and those discussions were deemed not to be important enough. As I recall I tried to make the point that a watchlist notice does not reach the IP users who would be affected by PC but that still didn't cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- There's a not-unreasonable fear that over-using the sitenotice will limit its effectiveness. But this is kind of a big deal, isn't it? Hrm. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Requested redirect
Requesting redirect of epic fail guy and Epic Fail Guy to Guy Fawkes mask as per that article and Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Internet and tech culture. — C M B J 10:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- There are no incoming links to those; what usefulness would they have? In addition, can you clarify what has changed since the most recent consensus that lead to the deletion of the redirect? :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 10:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is not unreasonable, given the subject's popularity, to assume that users will manually seek out an article at that title. As for the above discussion, it pertained to an inappropriate redirect that lacked any supporting content, whereas this target explicitly mentions the subject. — C M B J 10:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- (EC) The request to remove the redirect from EFG -> 4chan was based on no mention in the article. EFG is mentioned at the guy fawkes mask article as part of its section on Anonymous usage of the mask, and its origins. The only redirect to 4chan kept in that discussion was one that was used in the 4chan article. No comment on how useful this is to have currently. Although Anonymous is a bit more noteworthy since 2009, I am surprised there is no mention at that article, as while EFG isnt notable in itself as a 4chan meme (there are loads of them) it is relevant to the Anonymous group. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Bad Bot
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could one of you good folks have a look into User:ClueBot NG? It's left at least two bad warnings in the last two days at User talk:Eric Corbett. I filed the report here, and left a warning with pings here, but noticed that Cobi hasn't edited since the 6th, and Crispy since Feb. I don't know bot coding; but perhaps one of you good folks could look into this before some good faith editors are chased away improperly and needlessly. Thanks folks. — Ched : ? 20:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I believe User:Cobi is the one to poke, alternatively there's a list of contacts at User:ClueBot NG#Team, I don't think people here would know much about the details of its detection engine. Snowolf How can I help? 20:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Seems it's all down to Crispy though, who as Ched says hasn't edited since 20 February. That's just not good enough. Eric Corbett 20:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Crispy hasn't edited since 20 February 2011 indeed, which is why I pointed to Cobi who is the owner of the bot and would know how to fix it :) Snowolf How can I help? 20:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The problem isn't just that Eric was warned as a new user despite not being one (which is, in thoery, understandable), it's that ClueBot issues rather insistent warnings for alleged vandalism when the edits have nothing to do whatsoever with vandalism. That's unacceptable and I'd support disabling ClueBot until the operator explains or fixes the issue. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 20:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Mind notifying the bot owner at least once before starting talk of disabling bots and whatnot? Snowolf How can I help? 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The bot owner has been notified, but has so far failed to deal with the issue. Eric Corbett 20:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, by me a few moments ago. Before that, the only notification was on the bot's talk page which is for less urgent stuff, when you try to reach a botop for such an urgent matter, it's worth actually posting to their talk page... Snowolf How can I help? 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The bot owner has been notified, but has so far failed to deal with the issue. Eric Corbett 20:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Mind notifying the bot owner at least once before starting talk of disabling bots and whatnot? Snowolf How can I help? 20:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Seems it's all down to Crispy though, who as Ched says hasn't edited since 20 February. That's just not good enough. Eric Corbett 20:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It seems Ched has decided to unilaterally block the bot. I can't say that I agree, Cluebot NG has a vital role in our countervandalism system and should not be blocked on a whim based on one or two problematic warnings and a report/ping left not more than a few hours ago. Snowolf How can I help? 20:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No offense Snowolf - but I blocked it temporarily (with notes to both inactive operators) - and left a note at WT:BAG in the hopes that one of them may be able to look into it. I will follow up on it - it's not like we're offending a "real person" with this - rather we're preventing the "bot" from offending. — Ched : ? 20:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Fundamentally, bots should not have inactive operators, and when they do they should be canned. Eric Corbett 20:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)And what you've done is show that you have no clue about this. You've blocked the bot while leaving autoblock on, blocking all of cluenet. You've posted on the BAG page while you can see that a BAG member has been here trying to explain to you how to go about this and expect that BAG does what? We don't have access to the sourcecode or the running instance. And FYI, what you call 'inactive bot operators' are generally people who aren't much active as editors but promply reply to urgent issue. I note that you didn't left a message on the user's talk page before blocking even and merely waited a few hours from your report. All of this and you blocked one of the most important parts of the enwiki countervandalism infrastracture for two lousy mistakes. Please, you're being ridicolous and clueless. I have to remove the autoblock and I will take the occasion to remove the block along with it. This is utterly ridicolous. Snowolf How can I help? 20:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I see Reaper beat me to it, thankfully. Snowolf How can I help? 20:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Whoa whoa whoa guys, Cluebot catches an incredible amount of vandalism much more reliably than human editors. While I get that it's suboptimal for it to be reverting good-faith edits, the warnings to Eric are the first I've seen of Cluebot screwing up in this manner and I question the wisdom of using blocking as a first step here in response to what's basically a single error on a single user's edits, especially without notifying the community to expect a much higher vandalism load in need of manual reverting. This is not a bot malfunction that's breaking articles and needs to be instantly cut off; we can afford to take more than an hour to figure out what's going on and how systematic it is before we just whack a big ol' block (with autoblock enabled, good grief) on the bot. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I echo the above (!) the bot is designed to achieve a 0.1% false positive rate, MF isn't at risk of being blocked and the fact that predictors associated with his new account form a pretty unique situation likely mean the bot is doing exactly what we'd want it to 999 times out of 1000 (this just happens to be the other time) Jebus989✰ 20:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Whatever you guys want to do is fine by me .. I took a shot. I agree it's done some great work, but I don't want to lose real people over it either. You folks want to unblock it - then that's fine with me - no objections. Just trying to get a handle on things before we lose real people over a "bot" falsely accusing folks of vandalism. — Ched : ? 20:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- BTW - twice in two days to the same user is a bit more than "an hour" .. but like I say - whatever you think best is fine by me. — Ched : ? 20:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is returning bad information. Perhaps the toolserver DB is broken. This on the other hand seems normal. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'd take a stab and guess that it only decided to issue the second warning after Drmies issued a humourous level 3 warning.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It just shows that what MF (EC) is doing is considered vandalism by an objective observer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well to be fair, it was probably caused by you inserting "&nbp;" into an article, which doesn't equate to anything since this was a typo of you inserting a symbol. Since it warned you once before, it probably recognized you as a potential problem editor. Obviously this is in error, but blocking a bot that is not seriously malfunctioning is not the right approach, especially when it's probably the best vandalism fighter we have. It's best just to shrug it off and move on. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- This is returning bad information. Perhaps the toolserver DB is broken. This on the other hand seems normal. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Let's slow down and consider the cost/benefit here
Ah.... I wonder what is actually going on here. Just doing a quick survey of the robot's last edits, it seems to be performing normally -- reverting obvious vandalism, and leaving appropriately mildly-worded warnings on the malefactor's talk pages. Except for Eric Corbett.. With him (and only him, apparently?), it's reverting perfectly unobjectionable edits and leaving screaming red nastinesss on the talk page. I have a hard time believing that this is mere coincidence. One theory: the robot has achieved consciousness (we have been warned that this would happen) and is manifesting a darkly twisted sense of humor or a suprahuman trolling ability, or both.
But nevermind about that. The cause is not important. What is important is what's best for the project. I would say that if it's true that Eric Corbett and only Eric Corbett is the victim of this vicious editing jenny gone awry, and considering the extremely important value this machine adds to the project, then... well, you do the math. I did, and have to strongly object to blocking the device on purely on cost/benefit grounds. This is sad for Eric Corbett, but we're making an encyclopedia not running a middle-school girls' tea party. We need to work that this robot does, and it needs to be unblocked ASAP. Herostratus (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2013 (UT
- User:Reaper Eternal has unblocked ClueBot NG, Cobi said above that the toolserver database seems to return invalid information (edit count etc.) about some users (User:Eric Corbett) which could have caused this. --Sitic (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- If it is just Eric, then I'm sure he's quite capable of laughing it off. He's been victimised far more thoroughly over the years than a mere bot can manage. But if this is a symptom of a wider problem of the bot taking a BITE out of newcomers, then the cost dramatically increases well beyond the benefit. In that case, the strong objection to blocking the bot suddenly gets a helluva lot weaker, doesn't it? --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's not just a matter of edit count -- the bot chewed a user out for vandalism about edits that were evidently not vandalism; this is what I'd like to see explained. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- To be fair to the bot, whilst it may appeaer obviously not vandalism to a human, it would probably be almost impossible to programme to bot to distinguish it from similar vandalistic edits.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah put down the pitchforks folks, a number of editors have suggested perfectly reasonable explanations of how the edits could have been mistaken for vandalism, so unless a dev identifies a specific issue with the bot let's, erm, AGF? Jebus989✰ 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm not ready to put the pitchfork down just yet. While I'm sure that in the future we'll all be controlled by spinning whirlwinds of hyperintelligent dust, until that day, the chance of a piece of code putting off a potentially good new editor like Eric, is too high. It's message should at least be toned down until it learns to behave. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The occasional erroneous false positive is to be expected with any neural network system. The libel and defamation that is guaranteed to be inserted into BLPs if ClueBot is disabled requires this bot to be left running. Go through its contributions. Note the ratio of true to false positives is extremely high. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and the level four "stop it or else!" message was triggered because Drmies flagged Eric as a vandal with his joke level three warning. It would otherwise have been a level one warning. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, anyone can tone the warnings down. They were more polite, and someone else made them less so. Here are some links:
- Personally, I'm not ready to put the pitchfork down just yet. While I'm sure that in the future we'll all be controlled by spinning whirlwinds of hyperintelligent dust, until that day, the chance of a piece of code putting off a potentially good new editor like Eric, is too high. It's message should at least be toned down until it learns to behave. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah put down the pitchforks folks, a number of editors have suggested perfectly reasonable explanations of how the edits could have been mistaken for vandalism, so unless a dev identifies a specific issue with the bot let's, erm, AGF? Jebus989✰ 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- To be fair to the bot, whilst it may appeaer obviously not vandalism to a human, it would probably be almost impossible to programme to bot to distinguish it from similar vandalistic edits.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's not just a matter of edit count -- the bot chewed a user out for vandalism about edits that were evidently not vandalism; this is what I'd like to see explained. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 21:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
-- Cobi(t|c|b) 22:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm no expert on the CBNG programming and learning, but it saw a brand-new new editor put in invalid html, repeating characters, and make lots of small changes, and got another warning. If this weren't EC/MF, at least some of that might have been reverted by a person. Perhaps the system could be educated to check for certain user-rights, so that a new editor who has advanced rights is not acted-toward like just a new editor. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- That is already done. The reason it happened here was because the database knew nothing about the user. This is likely because the toolserver database is broken (see above). -- Cobi(t|c|b) 23:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- But how can it be broken when I can see my own contributions here? Eric Corbett 23:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I found the issue -- I typoed the link earlier, this is a good link. As you can see, the user has 368 edits, but 72 edits to their talk page regarding warnings. That puts the ratio at 19.5%. That combined with the sheer number of talk page edits regarding warnings probably causes the bot's ANN to consider it vandalism:
- But how can it be broken when I can see my own contributions here? Eric Corbett 23:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- That is already done. The reason it happened here was because the database knew nothing about the user. This is likely because the toolserver database is broken (see above). -- Cobi(t|c|b) 23:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm no expert on the CBNG programming and learning, but it saw a brand-new new editor put in invalid html, repeating characters, and make lots of small changes, and got another warning. If this weren't EC/MF, at least some of that might have been reverted by a person. Perhaps the system could be educated to check for certain user-rights, so that a new editor who has advanced rights is not acted-toward like just a new editor. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
rev_user_text | rev_comment |
---|---|
Bulleid Pacific | /* A rather late warning... */ new section |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* A rather late warning... */ no deadline |
Bulleid Pacific | /* A rather late warning... */ |
Bulleid Pacific | /* A rather late warning... */ |
Bulleid Pacific | /* A rather late warning... */ |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* A rather late warning... */ whaddya mean, can't convert degrees to metric? |
Ckatz | /* Date linking */ reply/warning |
Gimmetrow | /* Civility warning */ new section |
Geometry guy | /* Civility warning */ Please read my comments on Gimmetrows talk page |
Geometry guy | /* Civility warning */ Clarify |
Amicon | /* Civility warning */ er |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* Civility warning */ reply |
Pedro | /* Civility warning */ recent? |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* Civility warning */ reply to Gguy |
Amicon | /* Civility warning */ |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* Civility warning */ reply |
Gimmetrow | /* Civility warning */ |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* Civility warning */ nothing more to say for now |
Pedro | /* Civility warning */ do not |
Gimmetrow | /* Civility warning */ |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* Civility warning */ reply |
Pedro | /* Civility warning */ reply (ec) |
Pedro | /* Civility warning */ crucial word! |
Pedro | /* Civility warning */ btw |
Mattisse | /* Question */ @SandyGeorgia - diff you meant to AN/I where warning was deemed unjustified? |
Balloonman | /* Continuation of debate from Malleus's oppose brought to talk as it is no longer about candidate */ final warning |
Georgewilliamherbert | /* I really wish you hadn't edit warred with me on my talk page */ civility warning for the sequence on Beeblebrox' talk page. that was not treating other editors with dignity or respect. |
Singularity42 | /* Cumberlandindustriesuk CSD warning */ new section |
Singularity42 | /* Cumberlandindustriesuk CSD warning */ removed unnecessary brackets |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* Cumberlandindustriesuk CSD warning */ because you created the redirect |
Singularity42 | /* Cumberlandindustriesuk CSD warning */ okay then |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* A warning */ new section |
Juliancolton | /* A warning */ cmt |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* A warning */ how? |
Ceranthor | /* A warning */ $0.02 |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* A warning */ too late |
Chillum | /* Civility warning */ new section |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* Civility warning */ fuck off |
Fred the Oyster | /* Civility warning */ |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* Civility warning */ my last word |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* Civility warning */ idiots 1 ... |
Fred the Oyster | /* Civility warning */ |
Parrot of Doom | /* Civility warning */ greasy ladder |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* Civility warning */ gone |
White Shadows | /* Civility warning */ please.... |
Proofreader77 | /* Civility warning */ Time for musical transcendence! ^;^ |
Richerman | /* Civility warning */ get a life! |
White Shadows | /* Civility warning */ way to go |
White Shadows | /* Civility warning */ way to go... |
Unitanode | /* Civility warning */ oh, goodie! |
White Shadows | /* Civility warning */ one last attempt.... |
80.219.8.3 | /* Civility warning */ c |
Guerillero | /* Civility warning */ |
Pride the Arrogant | /* Civility warning */ cmt |
Jack1755 | /* Civility warning */ |
Pride the Arrogant | /* Civility warning */ What he said! |
Georgewilliamherbert | /* Your behavior */ Turian blocked for 48 hrs for having kept it up past warning |
Civility Police | /* A warning from the Civility Police */ new section |
Civility Police | /* A warning from the Civility Police */ fix |
The Civility Police | /* A warning from the Civility Police */ new section |
The Civility Police | /* A warning from the Civility Police */ new section |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* August 2010 */ please consider this to be your first warning |
Iridescent | /* Your advice please on a possible FA */ The usual warning |
Kiefer.Wolfowitz | /* September 2011 */ Posting a "warning" 8 hours after R's clarification was multiply problematic |
ThatPeskyCommoner | /* Sockpuppetry */ Only ever as a warning not to tolerate injustice against others |
Drmies | /* Donner party */ warning: WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK |
173.44.132.114 | /* Only warning. */ new section |
SineBot | Signing comment by 173.44.132.114 - "/* Only warning. */ new section" |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* ANI and Demiurge */ necessary warning |
Malleus Fatuorum | /* Your back! */ should be a warning really |
Ealdgyth | /* That time again ... */ warning |
Drmies | /* Sunbeam Tiger */ fictional warning |
- I've reported a bad edit by ClueBot NG in the recent past. I'm wondering if perhaps it is time to have ClueBot moved to labs and updated to prevent these kinds of issues since toolserver is no longer reliable and causing issues. Technical 13 (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The bot is on labs, but labs doesn't have access to the database, so that one script (which is non-critical, but lowers the accuracy of the bot when it doesn't report correctly) is still on the toolserver, and the bot hits that script for the data it needs out of the database. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 22:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Labs actually has access to the database as of today, but of course it hasn't been thoroughly tested. --Rschen7754 22:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ched has my total support on this. Cluebot is clueless. Let's see, Eric makes a typo, bot is unattended and making bad postings/warnings, Ched blocks bot, and Snowolfie rants on Ched? Bat bot, Bad Snowolfie....PumpkinSky talk 23:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Which is more damaging though, reverting the false positive and reporting it, or blocking the bot and leaving vandalism site-wide unattended? Eric is far from emotionally scarred from seeing a bot warning. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but his point was that real new users may get unjust vandalism warnings which might put them off of editing altogether. Eric mentioned somewhere that the wording of the level 4 template was a bit strong for his taste--I personally don't subscribe to that since that level 4 needs to be as serious as can be if the previous levels were correctly applied. I'm quite willing to accept that this is a toolserver-related problem, but a. that's above my pay grade and b. Eric mentioned that toolserver, as far as he could judge, seemed to be working--in other words, that explanation does not yet hold a lot of water. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- They do, no question. But then, human editors give out unjust warnings, too; ClueBot is not all that different. Retiring Cluebot would not eliminate unjust vandalism warnings; the number of human-caused warnings would rise, since humans would have to take over all the reversion the bot does (which is a majority of the vandalism reversion on Wikipedia). One important difference is that a human user might have been able to figure out that your joke warning was just that, whereas Cluebot is incapable of doing so. Your joke warning was the only reason Cluebot went to level 4; otherwise, it would've gone to the still-mild level 2. Of course, joke warnings are not a concern for new editors (at least, I really really hope not). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Like Writ said, the chance of an instance of two false positives with an intermediate joke warning isn't very likely to repeat, so this is a pretty rare occurrence. And, as someone who works in WP:ACC, I can safely tell you that there is a reason that we are transitioning this to labs as well: toolserver is frequently borked beyond repair and is unreliable. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- So, a false positive has been identified, and the community has made it clear it wants the situation addressed. I think that is enough for the moment, ClueBot doesn't actually make a lot of mistakes and it undeniably does revert tons of vandalism. If the situation isn't dealt with soon we can re-examine the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, not one but two in quick succession, and what we need to know is why. Eric Corbett 01:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, two, I guess I was thinking of them both as a single error, and I completely agree that we need to know why and the situation needs to be rectified, I just don't think the bot should be shut off while we work it out unless it is making lots of equally obvious errors. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- The errors only affect me apparently, so obviously they don't matter. Eric Corbett 01:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite; false positives happen all the time (for a given value of "all the time"; the threshold is set very low to prevent as many false positives as it can), as with any and all automated non-deterministic processes, and the fact that it happened to you is the only reason this is getting even close to the attention it is. The two in two days is a problem, but people are looking into it. To be honest, I'm not really sure what more you want; false positives always have been and always will be a reality of automated vandalism reversion, and we've historically accepted that risk. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm still not buying it. First of all it was a toolserver database problem and now it's the ability of the bot to connect an account that it doesn't believe exists to one that's had a load of warnings over the last six years or so. Do you really think that's credible? Eric Corbett 02:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Quite the opposite; false positives happen all the time (for a given value of "all the time"; the threshold is set very low to prevent as many false positives as it can), as with any and all automated non-deterministic processes, and the fact that it happened to you is the only reason this is getting even close to the attention it is. The two in two days is a problem, but people are looking into it. To be honest, I'm not really sure what more you want; false positives always have been and always will be a reality of automated vandalism reversion, and we've historically accepted that risk. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- The errors only affect me apparently, so obviously they don't matter. Eric Corbett 01:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, two, I guess I was thinking of them both as a single error, and I completely agree that we need to know why and the situation needs to be rectified, I just don't think the bot should be shut off while we work it out unless it is making lots of equally obvious errors. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, not one but two in quick succession, and what we need to know is why. Eric Corbett 01:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- So, a false positive has been identified, and the community has made it clear it wants the situation addressed. I think that is enough for the moment, ClueBot doesn't actually make a lot of mistakes and it undeniably does revert tons of vandalism. If the situation isn't dealt with soon we can re-examine the issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, but his point was that real new users may get unjust vandalism warnings which might put them off of editing altogether. Eric mentioned somewhere that the wording of the level 4 template was a bit strong for his taste--I personally don't subscribe to that since that level 4 needs to be as serious as can be if the previous levels were correctly applied. I'm quite willing to accept that this is a toolserver-related problem, but a. that's above my pay grade and b. Eric mentioned that toolserver, as far as he could judge, seemed to be working--in other words, that explanation does not yet hold a lot of water. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Which is more damaging though, reverting the false positive and reporting it, or blocking the bot and leaving vandalism site-wide unattended? Eric is far from emotionally scarred from seeing a bot warning. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ched has my total support on this. Cluebot is clueless. Let's see, Eric makes a typo, bot is unattended and making bad postings/warnings, Ched blocks bot, and Snowolfie rants on Ched? Bat bot, Bad Snowolfie....PumpkinSky talk 23:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Labs actually has access to the database as of today, but of course it hasn't been thoroughly tested. --Rschen7754 22:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The bot is on labs, but labs doesn't have access to the database, so that one script (which is non-critical, but lowers the accuracy of the bot when it doesn't report correctly) is still on the toolserver, and the bot hits that script for the data it needs out of the database. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 22:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Now that someone has mentioned it, moving the talk page over might have been the issue, that does make a bit more sense. I would still like to see some verification that the percentage of wrong guesses is actually 1/1000 or less. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 01:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- User:ClueBot NG/FAQ#False_Positives and User:ClueBot NG/BRFA -- Cobi(t|c|b) 01:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also relevant:
- -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- How do you know how many false positives there are? NE Ent 02:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know this Eric Corbett person -- maybe they're not a Wikipedian or something so the bot doesn't work right from them -- but we're fortunate they're persistent enough to keep editing despite mindless harassment. How many other new editors would have simply said screw it and left? I'd rather have 20 pieces of unreverted vandalism than one editor lost. If the encyclopedia was, you know, finished or something maybe "protecting" it would be the highest priority, but with a quarter million {{unreferenced}} templates I don't think it is. NE Ent 02:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
if( $change[ 'all' ][ 'user_edit_count' ] > 50 )
if( $change[ 'all' ][ 'user_warns' ] / $change[ 'all' ][ 'user_edit_count' ] < 0.1 )
return Array( false, 'User has edit count' );
else
$reason = 'User has edit count, but warns > 10%';
- However, if you add your name to Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist, it will ignore you. I know it shows that there isn't a list there anymore, but if you click edit on the page, you will see there is still a list. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I really can't be bothered. You initially claimed that I didn't exist on the toolserver database, yet now I apparently do, but I wasn't allowed to rename my account, so now I'm stuck in this pit. Eric Corbett 02:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I said "likely" for a reason -- because I was at work and hadn't had time to do a thorough investigation, and it was the most likely explanation given the quick investigation I did. I've had time to actually log into the toolserver and actually debug it now, and my initial guess turned out to be incorrect. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I really can't be bothered. You initially claimed that I didn't exist on the toolserver database, yet now I apparently do, but I wasn't allowed to rename my account, so now I'm stuck in this pit. Eric Corbett 02:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- However, if you add your name to Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist, it will ignore you. I know it shows that there isn't a list there anymore, but if you click edit on the page, you will see there is still a list. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- You can't get "exact" out of a profile. What's your sample size and how is the sample selected? NE Ent 02:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- The sample size is half the size of it's training corpus. Something like 40k edits or so. The samples set is selected randomly. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- 40,000 randomly selected positives have been human reviewed? NE Ent 02:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, 40-50k randomly selected edits have been classified by humans. We split this corpus into a training set and a calibration set randomly. We train the bot with the training set and then calibrate it by having it score everything in the calibration set. Then we set the revert threshold such that the number of edits which the bot says is vandalism and humans say are good is less than 0.1%. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Are the raw numbers (counts?) published somewhere? NE Ent 03:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, 40-50k randomly selected edits have been classified by humans. We split this corpus into a training set and a calibration set randomly. We train the bot with the training set and then calibrate it by having it score everything in the calibration set. Then we set the revert threshold such that the number of edits which the bot says is vandalism and humans say are good is less than 0.1%. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- 40,000 randomly selected positives have been human reviewed? NE Ent 02:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- The sample size is half the size of it's training corpus. Something like 40k edits or so. The samples set is selected randomly. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Not since the BRFA (linked above). -- Cobi(t|c|b) 03:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, saw the linked section User:ClueBot_NG#Statistics, seeing percentages but not raw numbers. NE Ent 05:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Cobi's explanation for the bot's behavior is correct. The exact theories regarding the bot's operation are public, and how this kind of mistake occurs is clear to those who understand the basic concepts of machine learning. I spent a great deal of time ensuring that the bot is properly calibrated to the specified false positive rate, and it has been properly operating autonomously at this threshold for years. Wikipedia has a large number of relevant articles on machine learning and the specific technologies used in Cluebot NG - if you read them, you will probably have a better understanding of these issues. I would be more than happy to discuss any technical arguments about why Cobi's explanation is incorrect, but it is not productive to say "I think this is wrong but I don't know why", without anything to back it up. Crispy1989 (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for posting all that Cobi, it's nice to see it spelled out so clearly and reasonably. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Another Comment
I have a lot of pages watch-listed. Very often, the last edit that I see mentioned is a revert by User:ClueBot NG. In those cases, I have never seen a false positive. I have a very good regard for Clue Bot NG. We need ClueBot NG. It is an excellent vandalism fighter, and it doesn't sleep. Blocking the bot is very undesirable. I will add that the comments about Eric Corbett being a new editor are incorrect. Eric Corbett is a very experienced editor. I don't know why the bot went false-positive, except that he made a typo in markup. I have an opinion that the bot should be tweaked so that it never issues a Level 3 or Level 4 warning. It's a bot. Level 3 and Level 4 warnings should be issued by humans. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Under the circumstances, I don't blame User:Eric Corbett for requesting that the bot be blocked. It should not have been blocked, but it should not have issued a Level 4 warning. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC) In general, the proper response to a mistake by ClueBot is exactly what ClueBot suggests. The specific issue, however, is that ClueBot apparently should not be issuing Level 4 warnings. It appears that this one was just a blunder. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Feel free to tweak the language of the level 4, but CBNG does a lot of reporting to WP:AIV/AVB where it is reviewed by a human and then the choice to block or not to block is made. The warnings, as I originally wrote them, never directly accused the person of vandalism, but stated that an automated process has flagged their edit as "possible vandalism". But, as I said, feel free to tweak the warnings. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Whoever believed that this was a good idea needs to have his bumps felt:
This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Hengistbury Head, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted- I don't see any mention of "possible vandalism" there. Surely I'm not the only one ever to have had this rather intimidating warning? Eric Corbett 02:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- So go change it, as you have been repeatedly told. SQLQuery me! 05:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- How many innocent editors do you expect have made around three edits interpreted as vandalism, seen earlier warnings which were false positives, continued going to get the fourth and then given up editing while not getting blocked? I'm almost sure most false positives are given at the 1 and 2 levels, not at the fourth warning. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- What's your point exactly? "No problem with the heavy level-4 warning because the ponces ought to have fucked off by then anyway"? Eric Corbett 02:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, that the level 1 and 2 are significantly less harsh than a level four, and less likely to have "scared" someone off. "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to ________ has been undone" isn't harassing to new editors, even if they are false positives. Considering that out of the little number of false positives that there are, that the vast majority are not level four, it isn't as a significant a problem you are making it out to be. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- What's your point exactly? "No problem with the heavy level-4 warning because the ponces ought to have fucked off by then anyway"? Eric Corbett 02:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- What's the mean number of edits by editors after false positives, and how does that compare to editors who contributions weren't flagged? NE Ent 02:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Proper"? The reasonable response for a new editor curious about Wikipedia whose early edit gets reverted with would be go do something fun. NE Ent 02:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- While Corbett's case shouldn't've occurred for a number of reasons - Drmies, please read WP:DTTR if you'ven't already - I fully protest against the bot not being allowed to issue level three and four warnings. I've seen a talk page with twelve reminders (level one and two) on it and only one warning (three and four), and if a user is to all intents and purposes 'welcomed' too often, they are likely to view vandalism as encouraged. And besides, the bot is instructed to revert the least constructive 0.1% of edits, so this tells me that vandalism is currently very low, which is fantastic news. I suggest that whenever it issues a level 3 or 4 warning, it chucks out a report on a random active admin's talk page and will tell it to keep an eye on it. Thoughts?--Launchballer 08:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Cluebot's response to EC's edits on Hengistbury Head (which generated the 4th-level warning) is distinctly odd. It reverted a group of 4 edits, done within a couple of minutes: the 3rd edit, at 19:14, introduced a single typo of "&nbp;", which was remedied in the next edit at 19:15. Cluebot reverted the 4 edits at 19:15 (and it's that single edit, the typo, which it cites in its "changed" link). Nothing else within those edits looks capable of being interpreted as vandalism. Does Cluebot pick up instantly on every accidental mistyping of non-alphanumeric characters as potential vandalism? Watch your fingers, folk, and use Preview!
Apart from that, there seem two lessons to learn here:
- Joke warnings are Not A Good Thing and should be deleted lest they confuse a passing bot. (I don't think we can blame Cluebot for assuming that a 3rd warning was a 3rd warning.)
- When Cluebot says "If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again." (my emphasis) it means business. If any of us spot a false positive Cluebot report on a new or inexperienced editor's page, perhaps because Cluebot reverted wrongly on a page on our watchlist, we need to make sure that the false positive is reported and the report is removed from the editor's page. I can well imagine a new editor reporting the false positive but not seeing any point in removing the talk page message, or just being overwhelmed by the rather lengthy message and failing to do anything. Question: Is it acceptable for another editor to remove that false warning, now that we know about its implications? (ie that if the editor continues to make misunderstood but constructive edits then Cluebot will escalate its warnings). PamD 10:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Of course it is. Disagree about the humor thing -- the machines are supposed to serve us, not we them. NE Ent 10:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you can get a machine to tell if someone is joking, let the world know. The complexities of humor make it, after love, probably one of the most confusing human interactions. "Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on The Man in the Moone. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This edit summary was an uncalled-for attack on a well-respected editor. For all you know, it was Drmies who put that comma in there. Please calm down." is a joke but "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Man in the Moone, you may be blocked from editing" is serious. Humans could easily find those identical. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I think the problem is (though this is really just an educated guess on my part; I don't know exactly how Cluebot works) that Drmies's joke included the HTML comment that Cluebot looks for in a warning. So, Drmies (unknowingly) included the bit that explicitly labels his template as a real level 3 warning, and Cluebot cannot but take it seriously. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Until the machines write the articles I think human editors should have primacy ; if Drmies wants to ignore the bureaucracy and slap a template that will be clearly understood by Eric et. al. as a joke that's actually a good thing. We're not myspace but that doesn't mean editors have to be mindless editing drones with no personality or no interaction. NE Ent 15:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Man, I am so all for jokes and humor that it's not funny (*rimshot*), but using automated tools and/or templates to do so is not the best of ideas, as they come with other, hidden things that they do that only apply to real warnings. If Drmies had noticed and removed the comment from his post (assuming my guess about Cluebot is correct), there would have been nothing at all wrong about his joke, and there isn't anything *wrong* per se about his joke the way he actually did do it. It's just that this is the result, and you can't really blame the bot for thinking the joke was serious when the joke included a part that told the bot "this is a serious warning". Garbage in, garbage out, as they say. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem with the lvl 4 warning was, that ClueBot thought EC was a new user. How many ironic lvl 3 warnings are given to new users? There is no problem using the template as joke for users which ClueBot ignores. --Sitic (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, that too: I mentioned that somewhere already. Who knows where; I feel like there are 5 threads related to this on 5 different pages, and I'm losing track of which is which. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Missing image
Hello all, I do not know who to talk to about this. The image File:Sake barrels.jpg is missing, and I cannot locate it. It is three-time featured image of the day and it is simply gone. It is not on Commons that I can find. Does anybody know where I might find it? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- The deletion log for the file reads:
- 16:21, January 21, 2005 Rdsmith4 (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Sake barrels.jpg (obsolete)
- Does that answer your question? Perhaps an admin could restore it for you if you have a valid reason. :) Cheers! Technical 13 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- It was deleted in 2005, I imagine because it was moved to Commons. I'm not sure we can retrieve it at this point, maybe a Commons admin could find some answers? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- The more likely cause for this missing is:
- 08:17, 6 May 2013 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page File:Sake barrels.jpg (Commons:Deletion requests/packaing violation) (global usage; delinker log)
- Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- The deletion "discussion" happened here. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 01:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
-
- INeverCry is an admin on both projects as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Discussion" indeed. I've reuploaded a copy locally after Fastily linked to it from his Commons talk page. If there are potential problems with the image, a proper debate on them can be held here. — Scott • talk 23:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- [ec with Scott] Yes, but my question for Fastily was a request for more information on his choice to delete, not simply a "what got deleted?" question. He says: Did some research, thought about it, and at the moment, I'm inclined to stick with the close unless we get some new evidence regarding the artwork on the barrels. Here's a copy of the image. Is the design on the barrels is copyrighted? If it is, then we can't host it because it's definitely not De minimis. Otherwise, it should be fine for Commons, and I can restore it. -FASTILY 06:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Perhaps he's right, or perhaps he's wrong, but I'm not sure, so neither will I ask for undeletion nor will I try to get the locally-uploaded image deleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- INeverCry is an admin on both projects as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 12:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
What is a "packaing violation"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm assuming "packaging" violation, where the packaging design would be a copyvio. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Or perhaps there were images of a man dressed in a packa? That would certain violate many people's sense of decency... :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that I've nominated the file for delisting from its FP status; this is because of its size, not because of anything discussed in this section. Please go there and offer your opinions. Nyttend (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Account with troubling name
WMF Aware Jalexander--WMF 08:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
|
---|
I've just noticed that an account LETMEKILLMYSELF (talk · contribs) has recently been created. My first thought was to {{usernamehardblock}} it without waiting for edits, but I felt the name was sufficiently concerning to bring it here. Any thoughts about what to do? Does this come under the "threats of violence" policy? -- The Anome (talk) 07:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
|
Jerusalem RfC
I have just opened the RfC on the lead of the Jerusalem article that was mandated by this Arbitration motion. If there are any admins around here that aren't too overworked (yes, I know, we need a pay rise), I would be very grateful if you could watchlist the discussion and monitor it for sockpuppetry and personal attacks. The Israel/Palestine topic area is notorious for sockpuppetry, and my experience at the moderated discussion that led to the RfC has made it clear that the editors can easily slip into incivility, so any extra eyeballs would be most useful. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
File badly captioned.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Refd.svg/55px-Refd.svg.png)
Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Runyon_Paved_Section.jpg, the caption is bad. There is no Vista Avenue in the city of Los Angeles. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- It should presumably be Vista Street. See the Google map at 34°06′19″N 118°21′07″W / 34.1053°N 118.3519°W for the junction of the paved path through Runyon Canyon Park with North Vista Street. Deor (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- That file is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, you'll need to take this up over there. (it doesn't appear to be used anywhere either)Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks to both. I will put the photo back in the article on Runyon Canyon Park and just correct the caption. As for Wikimedia Commons, I try to stay away from that zoo. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- That file is hosted at Wikimedia Commons, you'll need to take this up over there. (it doesn't appear to be used anywhere either)Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Ban appeal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was topic banned for three monthes on April 11 for edit waring. Ever since, I have been editing articles outside of the ones I was banned from and and demonstrating I can be trusted to eventually return to those topics, as requested in WP:Topic ban. On one of those articles, I even settled the issue on the talk page and didn't revert the article once in the meantime. I now want to request that the ban be lifted. I feel I have learned my lesson and won't repeat the mistakes I made in the past. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support: topic bans are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. The edits that TheShadowCrow plans to make are all perfectly fine, and constructive, as is evident from his sandbox page. To be honest, I really do not see any reason to keep the topic ban in place. I would hope that the fellow editors here will show TSC kindness and allow that his topic ban be lifted early, so that he can keep making constructive edits to articles. Truly ~ DanielTom (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - The first request to have the topic ban lifted can be found here; I don't know why it didn't get archived. The ANI discussion that led to the topic ban can be found here. BearMan998 (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
irellevant text now that the relevant problem has been fixed. Graham87 06:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Oppose - At this current time, I do not believe that there is enough history of editing to demonstrate that an early lifting of the ban. I see only a few edits and only recently in the past few days that fall outside of the topic ban. While not a violation of the topic ban, the vast majority of the edits since the topic ban have been in the user's sandbox on the very two topics that are topic banned, Armenia and BLP. Also, a bit off topic but while looking at this editor's recent edits, I would advise that TSC stay away from Azerbaijan related topics such as the one found here considering the user's indefinite WP:ARBAA2 ban. BearMan998 (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - A previous attempt to repeal the topic ban was rejected by the community less than a month ago and I see no way the consensus might've changed since then. There are plenty of other topics to improve, take your pick! :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - It's been over a month. You linked it yourself. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Barely, and I don't see how the extra day changes the essence of my point. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 13:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - It's been over a month. You linked it yourself. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support I feel like this user can contribute to the topics he's interested in. I'd give him a try, why not!? Looks like he has understood his mistake. --Երևանցի talk 04:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose A good chunk of the edits since the enacting of the Topic Ban have been related to the topic ban, but in their sandbox. There's little sign of attempting to "get along well" with others throughout other areas of the project - in fact, they had a dust-up recently with an admin related to this very topic ban. This is therefore waaaayyyy too soon to be back in areas where nastiness has a habit of forming to begin with (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Bwilkins. No compelling reasons to not let the ban run its course. Bans are not punitive, and they do allow time for reflection on collaborative spirit, and work in other areas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) This is very interesting as I've gone back and taken the time to read your original topic ban and your previous ban appeal. What I notice here is the fact the you have declared and offered any demonstration as to your acceptance and understanding of why you were topic banned in the first place as my reading of the other discussions seemed to have a much more detailed reason than simply "edit warring". I understand how frustrating it can be, but you really need to drop the sticks you seem to be holding. Saying you'll never do it again doesn't fly here if you can't explain and demonstrate understanding of what you did in the first place. Please, I encourage you to withdraw this request, come to my talk page, and have a discussion with me about it. You can always re-open a request later (although after discussion, you may realize there is a better plan). Technical 13 (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - for now. Let's wait for a full three months before revisiting. GiantSnowman 13:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Withdraw appeal --TheShadowCrow (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
MFD backlog
MFD is backlogged all the way to the 9th. Can we get to work doing some closure here? This one seems like a good place to start. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hello? Anyone here? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Might take a crack at them later. But highlighting one of your own nominations as something to close first is a bit on the nose, isn't it? Be patient. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- "A bit on the nose" it might be (no offense, I for one appreciate TPH's style), but an MfD opened on May 9th, with clear consensus to delete... yes, it should've been closed already. If I wasn't at work I'd do it right away; I'll try to see later tonight if I have time to gun this one down, and perhaps a few others. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's no great mystery why that is still open, admins tend to shy away from mass noms, too much work. However, I have a few minutes right now so I'll take a swing at it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Twinkle's batch deletion works like an awesome gatling gun. I was about to load some ammo into it but I guess I'm too late. I'll see what other MfD targets I can fire at. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's no great mystery why that is still open, admins tend to shy away from mass noms, too much work. However, I have a few minutes right now so I'll take a swing at it. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- "A bit on the nose" it might be (no offense, I for one appreciate TPH's style), but an MfD opened on May 9th, with clear consensus to delete... yes, it should've been closed already. If I wasn't at work I'd do it right away; I'll try to see later tonight if I have time to gun this one down, and perhaps a few others. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Might take a crack at them later. But highlighting one of your own nominations as something to close first is a bit on the nose, isn't it? Be patient. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I will admit if User:King of Hearts/closexfd.js these 5 scripts were made Vector-compatible, many admins might be more willing to close non-AfD XfD discussions. Any takers? ;) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- With extremely thorny MfDs like this one, I can understand the reluctance, however... :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
IP vandalism
This IP account User talk:187.149.237.103 and its established account it just created moments ago, User:Erik LMG, are being used to vandalize Wikipedia articles repeatedly, blanking large sections of A-Class articles and adding misinformation that's not consistent with corresponding sources. Examples include: Epic (film) where he/she has continually altered the age of a character that originally stated 17 to 21 even though the corresponding source states it as being 17 as shown here [3]; Stewie Goes for a Drive page where he/she also altered information as of relates to the reviews and has blanked large sections for no apparent reason, as shown here [4] and here [5]. I gave the user several warnings under its IP account, but it has followed up by making similar edits now under the Erik LMG account, created just moments ago. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- {{uw-voablock}} implemented. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
A question
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When edits are revision deleted or suppressed etc, and they involve page moves, is there any part of procedure for altering or suppressing the move log entries at the same time? I have a log link which demonstrates the question, but maybe you understand without that (which would obviously involve indirectly linking to a user's contribs here)? Begoon talk 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Can't be done at the same time, but we can do it separately — it's not a one-click solution to everything at once, but unless you're refreshing your browser every ten seconds, you won't catch us in the middle of it. See the deletion log for User:Nyttend/revdeltest — I deleted the page and then used revdel on the log, so you have no way of seeing who deleted it. Meanwhile, if you check my deletion log, you'll see that I've revdeleted the name of another page, User:Nyttend/revdeltest1. Create a subpage in my userspace with the log link, and include a link to my username on the page so that I'll get a notification; as soon as I see it, I'll be able to delete the page, so your message will remain private. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Can anybody create it as a redirect to Viva Móvil? I appreciate it. --George Ho (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- There is literally 15x more ghist for Viva Móvil than Viva Móvil by Jennifer Lopez, is renaming to the longer less used name the best thing for Wikipedia? Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 02:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'd say no, suggest reversion of the move and an RM. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've reverted back with instructions to have a discussion. That article is borderline for notability at this point, although I expect that will likely get fixed with time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 00:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
CfD backlog
Hi. If anyone has a little time and brainpower to spend, there's a bit of a backlog relating to CfD closures. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Proposal: topic ban for Jax 0677 regarding templates
As follow up to an RFC/U without serious effect on User:Jax 0677 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to up the quality of the templates he produces, I have no other option than request a topic ban for this user. The outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jax 0677 makes clear that there is no progress at all (at best, the result was very, very temporary). The RFC/U was filed by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and TenPoundHammer ([6]) and endorsed by 11 different edits, including me. ([7]).
- The topic ban I am seeking is one to prevent Jax 0677 from creating templates at all for a prolonged period of time.
The talkpage and the archives of the talkpage of mr. Jax show a worrying list of speedy deletions, proposed deletions and nominations for deletion (User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 1, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 2, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 3, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 4, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 5, User talk:Jax 0677/Archive 6, User talk:Jax 0677) of his templates.
The discussions on the pages "Template for Deletion" often have the same pattern.
- this, this and this are not linked to each other (random selection: [8], [9], [10], [11])
- WP:NENAN is just an essay. (usually when he has no arguments regarding to the content of the template).
- the article is too long to add wikilinks ([12]
- I don't know how to add wikilinks to articles.([13]) That is quite remarkable after creating about a thousand (1000) templates?
Each and every template for discussion gets a drawn out battle to preserve the template, many times to the point of filibustering. (Example: [14]) And many of his templates are deleted, rescued by others or suddenly get enough relevant links to be kept (after nomination).([15])
Interesting is also his habit to "claim". I don't have a clue how many page names he has already claimed by making a redirect on the name of an album to the name of the group. That must be hundreds. Unfortunately, he did the same with templates. To be precise 179 times. The discussion page shows quite nicely that he is in fact gaming the system and has always a nice pointy policy/essay to waive with, while on the other hand claiming that WP:NENAN is just an essay. I must admit, after being hammered at this point he did not do it again. The nasty part is that I don't have the idea that he would have stopped this behaviour when he was not hammered for it.
It is quite a pattern that he moves from this to that, makes a mess of it and than apologizes for that because he is new on the subject as if there are no manuals or other editors to ask for help or advice.([16], [17], [18])
I see no improvement in the quality of his templates but I do see a lot of effort put in his dodgy work by others, be it in the drawn out discussion or in plain improving his work. I have given up hope that he can improve to a reasonable standard with templates, so I propose a topic ban to prevent him from creating new templates at all. The Banner talk 15:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support - I'm not exactly a regular at TfD or wherever, but I've participated in the RFC/U, and I've seen this user's misdeeds firsthand at AfD. This needs to stop, now, and they refuse almost all attempts to help them, so a topic ban is required. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Like Luke, I'm not a big template guy, but every encounter I've had with this editor has involved a raging case of WP:IDHT, which is the case here too. At some point he'll come here and tell us that WP:BITE somehow protects him, ignoring the fact that after 25,000+ edits, he's no newbie. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support I wouldn't say there haven't been improvements to his template creations, particularly after the RfC/U, but if there is someone who just wants to do the bare minimum to get things done and move on, it would be Jax. Before, he would just create navboxes with only 5 links to pass the threshhold of WP:NENAN, despite the fact the navbox topic had plenty of candidate articles to include; but now, it's as if he's looking for those topic candidates that have the bare mininum of possibly related articles and creating those navboxes, so recent TfDs are just about what counts or not to meet "the rule of five". Because he can usually fix or improve them after being taken to TfD, he can claim a fairly large success rate at TfD. Unfortunately, that's part of Jax's problem. He takes pride in this and refuses to understand how much of everyone's time he is wasting (including his own) through the debate process. The goal of the RfC/U was to reduce the number of navboxes he's created taken to TfD and that's not happening per Banner's comments and my points above. He likes to point out that WP:NENAN is just an essay, yet his sole motivation seems to be driven by another essay, WP:ANOEP, per his comments here. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support - The RFC/U generated a brief improvement in behaviour but that as rather temporary. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support per above. His behavior improved temporarily, but I see no evidence that he's learned. I'm still seeing him filibuster to save his templates, and I'm still seeing him rushing out templates with too little content. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support, unfortunately necessary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Response from Jax_0677
Oppose - While I have made mistakes in the past with my navigation templates (hereinafter referred to as "navboxes"), I have dramatically improved the quality of my work over the past few months, and in my opinion, have made no dramatic mistakes in navboxes since April 25, 2013 when the RfC against me was proposed for closure. The navboxes that I have created during the last few months have had all related articles that I can contemplate included in the navbox, and the navbox has been included in all of the articles in question, with the exception of some of the "Related" articles. While eleven editors approved of the RfC, a topic ban is not a popularity contest.
The majority of the navboxes that I have created have NOT been deleted, and many have been kept. According to WP:POORLY and WP:TOOSHORT, many of these navboxes should never have been brought to TfD in the first place , as the navboxes had the potential to satisfy the requirements despite their imperfections.
To the alleged "pattern":
- Navboxes are designed to improve connectivity
- I (as well as others) have replied that WP:NENAN is an essay for navboxes that have four links (not including the parent article). The four links do not usually connect to one another without the navbox. Navboxes for Template:Anata and Template:Analog Rebellion have indeed been kept after TfD with four links. In some cases, NENAN was argued long before the "rule of five" excluded the parent article.
- If an article is long, it will be difficult to find the links within the article. For this reason, I have added the navbox, which I believe I have the right to do so long as there are a sufficient number of related articles. Additionally, I cannot predict which articles will be deleted before the navbox is finished. I therefore allowed Template:Flynn Adam to go forth and be deleted, because the articles were deleted after I finished the navbox. I created Template:Beyond Fear over one year ago before I understood that the NENAN "rule of five" does not include certain related articles.
- What I meant is that I can not find a good place in the articles to add the links. It is much easier to add one navbox to five or more articles than it is to add four "See Also" sections.
I am well within my right to dispute any legitimate charges against me or the navboxes that I create by stating legitimate points about why the navbox should be kept. According to the filibuster article on Wikipedia, "A filibuster is a type of parliamentary procedure where debate is extended, allowing one or more members to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal", which I can not do on a written forum.
I have not "claimed" a template name in more than several months. I stopped claiming template names weeks before the September 14th RfD was filed against me on dozens of articles. Fixing this error was a large undertaking, which I completed in a timely manner. I am also well within my right to redirect the name of an album or song to the applicable musician or ensemble per WP:NSONG.
I have only recently started creating navboxes about universities, and while the community does not want for me to make mistakes on these navboxes, it is going to happen. These navboxes have had all of the links about the university that I can contemplate, have been placed on all of the articles except some related articles, which is all that I have been told to do. In fact, 100% of the university navboxes that I have created that were brought to TfD have been kept, with few links added to them.
- The Banner is not able to name one navbox that I have created since April 25, 2013 (one month ago tomorrow) AFTER the RfC on me was proposed for closure that was not done at least reasonably correctly per User_talk:The_Banner#Topic_Ban_Proposal. The mistake I made was listing LBC Crew under "Related" instead of "Musical ensembles", which in my opinion, is minimal at best, considering that the four other links in the navbox do not all link to one another.
- Niteshift36 has repeatedly called me the "D" word on numerous occasions.
I feel that this Topic Ban, and many of the TfDs being filed against me are [out of frustration] that my navboxes are not perfect instead of an effort to improve the encyclopedia. I feel that I am being hammered just for making small mistakes.
Again, while I have made mistakes in the past, this is not a popularity contest, nor a device by which to punish users who are attempting to create an encyclopedia. Topic Bans are an effort to protect the encyclopedia from users that want to damage it. The fact that my recent mistakes have been minimal at best, that many of the TfDs are simply walking out of my past (which should curb over time now that I have added to a navbox every article that I can contemplate and have added that navbox to all of the articles in that navbox with the exception of some related articles) and that I was new to university navboxes and coloring them [in some ways (such as when editing an article on a topic outside our usual scope) even the most experienced among us are still newcomers] that a topic ban on anything other than universities is not in order at this time.
I can not control which of my creations are taken to TfD, but I can act to make my navboxes better.
I will be happy to answer any questions about navboxes that you have, or to address any issues stated in the Topic Ban that I may not have covered. No question is out of bounds, and I will answer them all, even if the answer is that it is none of your business.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Sincerely,
Jax_0677
--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Excuses, excuses, excuses and poor Jax is the innocent victim of a bunch of nasty guys. Backed up with a lot of distracting links to other pages. Unfortunately, your answer only illustrates that you don't understand or plainly ignore the problem. The Banner talk 17:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Reply - The vast majority of my efforts have contributed to a fuller encyclopedia, and I have addressed all issues against me here. I only said that "a topic ban is not a popularity contest", and The Banner seems to be acting sarcastically here.
- Which links are distracting, and why are they distracting?
- What exactly/specifically do I not "understand"?
- If The Banner is ignoring my questions, how can The Banner critique me for ignoring the problem?
- I have asked The Banner this before, and The Banner could not come up with one legitimate answer, so I ask again. Can one navbox that I wrote related to music started AFTER the RfC on me was proposed for closure (on April 25, 2013) that was not done at least reasonably correctly be named? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- 1) What is "the D word"? Maybe I need to use it again. It can't be "dick" because I said you were being a dick once in that discussion. Of course, call a spade a spade might apply here. 2)What does that AFD have to do with this other than to be a perfect example of how you latch onto a single essay (in that case WP:CHEAP) and just repeat it over and over as if it were given from above on 2 stone tablets? 3) Are you over the age of 12? If you are, the whole "Niteshift called me a name" routine is fairly childish looking.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that you fail to grasp that your behaviour and sloppy work is the problem here. You did indeed enough work to fill the encyclopedia, but your work is too often just ballast. More letters and digits, no worthy content. The Banner talk 18:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Reply - To Niteshift36:
- The "D" word is what you just said. Policy states that one should be cautious about referring to another individual by using that article.
- The fact that Niteshift36 referred to me using that article during the AfD once is enough to call Niteshift36's character into question.
- I am over the age of 12, but I won't give out my age. The fact that Niteshift36 referred to me using that article calls Niteshift36's character into question.
To The Banner:
- I have justified most if not all of my responses, and The Banner has the burden of proof that I have not. The Banner has failed to produce any "sloppy work" on music templates that I have started in the past 30 days, nor has The Banner proven that I have filibustered.
- I would hardly call my work ballast with zero worthy content. I have produced several hundred templates over the past several months. The point is, that the goal of a topic ban is not to reprimand, but is to protect the encyclopedia. My navboxes have been of decent quality as of late. The things that are going to TfD are walking out of my past, and in some cases were started more than one year ago. I allowed Template:Beyond Fear and "Template:Arkaea" to proceed unabated because I realized after the fact that many "Related" articles do not count toward the NENAN rule of five.
To All:
While I understand that some of my templates should go to TfD, I am very frustrated that there are MANY templates at TfD that should not have ever been brought there in the first place , which includes templates with 5 relevant links. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you understand that some your templates should go to TfD, I recommend not creating such templates. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Reply - In many of those cases, such as "template:dnbtu" and "template:unco", hindsight is 20/20. What I should have said is that "While I understand that some of my templates should have gone to TfD..." --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if this were a RFC about my character, your reply might have something to contribute. As it stands, it's a pointless red herring. First, my saying that you're being a dick isn't a matter of character. It's behavior. Second, none of that has any bearing on your inability to follow the standards. One could easily call your avoidance of the discussing your own actions by complaining about the actions of someone else months ago could be called dickish. And I didn't ask you to divulge your age. I asked if you were over the age of 12, an age where the "he called me a name" thing usually stops looking like a valid defense. Either way, I highly doubt
bitchingwhiningcomplaining about it will convince others to change their support of topic banning you. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, if this were a RFC about my character, your reply might have something to contribute. As it stands, it's a pointless red herring. First, my saying that you're being a dick isn't a matter of character. It's behavior. Second, none of that has any bearing on your inability to follow the standards. One could easily call your avoidance of the discussing your own actions by complaining about the actions of someone else months ago could be called dickish. And I didn't ask you to divulge your age. I asked if you were over the age of 12, an age where the "he called me a name" thing usually stops looking like a valid defense. Either way, I highly doubt
Request Review of What Appears to Be Personal Attack
I request that an uninvolved administrator review a personal attack by User:Peterzor on Talk: Soviet Union. It will probably be necessary to view the history of his talk page because he blanks his talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- diffs please. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=556596468&oldid=556595902 Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I came here by mistake. I meant to go to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I clicked the link - I see no personal attack. Saying someone is lying might be very slightly uncivil ... but certainly not AN- or ANI-worthy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, there is no need for admin intervention at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I clicked the link - I see no personal attack. Saying someone is lying might be very slightly uncivil ... but certainly not AN- or ANI-worthy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- I came here by mistake. I meant to go to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Standard offer for User:A.K.Nole
A.K.Nole (talk · contribs) is a community banned user and a prolific sock-puppet who has had a long running campaign against User:Mathsci. Following a discussion on WT:WPM the user has undergone a change of heart and now wishes to pursue the WP:Standard offer. He was banned following this discussion at WP:AN, but has since then used many sock-puppets covered by the User:Echigo mole SPI case archive 1 archive. The issue has recently been brought to a head at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#J-structure and the standard offer was proposed at User talk:Johnuniq#Standard offer. The user has indicated willingness to accept the offer there and also apologised for past actions[19], [20], [21], [22].
The draft offer is
- Wait six months, without sockpuppetry.
- Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban.
- Don't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return.
In particular case part 2 is
- 2.1 Avoid all interaction with Mathsci, including commenting on his activity
- 2.2 Avoid editing in the topic related to Jordan algebra
The exact nature of the topic restriction is to be determined and may be wider than above. I've asked the mathematical community for input here.
My view is that following the standard offer is a better option than the very disruptive cycle of sock-puppetry.--Salix (talk): 20:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- So, the most important provision of the standard offer is that the user in question go away completely for about six months. Unless and until they actually do that this discussion is premature. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Absolutely no way he ever gets to return under that username. Under any other circumstances, seeing it editing again I would have immediately indefinitely blocked it. If he's genuine, I guess the username issue could be sorted in six months time. CIreland (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Backlog - Requests for page protection
Bit of a back log going back almost 8 hours over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Anyone care to take a look?Moxy (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a backlog by definition, if admins are online and monitoring RFPP, it gets done quickly. If not, then asking on AN won't get you much farther. It'll be done eventually. Chill out! (I guess I should thanks you, TPH and Dweller for prompting me to put my thoughts into words.) :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)