Sven Manguard (talk | contribs) →RfC threat: Clearly, at least a good part of the problem lies with Kiefer.Wolfowitz. |
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) →RfC threat: administrators' repeat the '''sexist phrase "grow a pair'''", after I had objected to that on the previous ANI (and noted that I display a '''testicle-cancer survivor''' userbox) and you want to block me for incivility? |
||
Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
Is there any reason why you have not been blocked for incivility? This discussion is silly. '''Move for close''' (and any required behavioural remedies). [[User:La goutte de pluie|<font color="#20A7E4">elle</font> <small><sub><font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse</font></sub></small> <small><font color="d42214"><sup>à jamais</sup></font></small>]] ([[User talk:La goutte de pluie|be free]]) 00:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
Is there any reason why you have not been blocked for incivility? This discussion is silly. '''Move for close''' (and any required behavioural remedies). [[User:La goutte de pluie|<font color="#20A7E4">elle</font> <small><sub><font color="#d45477">vécut heureuse</font></sub></small> <small><font color="d42214"><sup>à jamais</sup></font></small>]] ([[User talk:La goutte de pluie|be free]]) 00:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:Two administrators' repeat the '''sexist phrase "grow a pair'''", after I had objected to that on the previous ANI (and noted that I display a '''testicle-cancer survivor''' userbox) and you want to block me for incivility? |
|||
:<small>Bury the rag deep in your face, Now is the time for your tears.</small> |
|||
:<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;"> '''Kiefer'''</font>]].[[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|Wolfowitz]]</span></small> 00:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Is it just me, or does Kiefer.Wolfowitz seem to be constantly getting into fights with... err... everyone? This is at least the fourth thread I can remember in the past few months in which Kiefer.Wolfowitz has been a party (in not a good way), and at least the second where interaction bans involving him have been suggested. Clearly, at least a good part of the problem lies with Kiefer.Wolfowitz. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
Is it just me, or does Kiefer.Wolfowitz seem to be constantly getting into fights with... err... everyone? This is at least the fourth thread I can remember in the past few months in which Kiefer.Wolfowitz has been a party (in not a good way), and at least the second where interaction bans involving him have been suggested. Clearly, at least a good part of the problem lies with Kiefer.Wolfowitz. [[User:Sven Manguard|<font color="207004"><big>'''S</big>ven <big>M</big>anguard'''</font>]] [[User talk:Sven Manguard|<small><font color="F0A804">'''Wha?'''</font></small>]] 00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:45, 10 August 2011
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize the proposals at the following discussions:
Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in infoboxes- Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)#RFC on the use of flagicons in lists
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 53#RfC: Did recent currency image deletions go beyond the proper aims and objectives of the NFC image policy?(which was archived but then restored to the main Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page in wait for a proper closure)Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover
The first four discussions have recently been archived from Template:Centralized discussion. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Discussions 1, 2, and 5 should be relatively straightforward closes, while discussions 3 and 4 will be much more challenging. Cunard (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- We don't need an admin to close rfcs. The discussion on mosicon is over I and believe we have consensus.Curb Chain (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2011
- Pst to admins looking for an easy close – #2 has no opposes. I can't close it as I write ship articles. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Ed, for closing Wikipedia talk:Notability (video games)#Proposal 2 and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Page mover. The other discussions remain open. Cunard (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The request to close "RFC on the use of flagicons in lists" has been sitting here for about a month and a half. It seems like anyone who looked at it has not found anything strong enough to call consensus and the RFC is now archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons)/Archive 9#RFC on the use of flagicons in lists. Interested parties should take another run at a fresh discussion, if necessary - perhaps seeking outside voices with a post to the village pump. Future timestamp removed... –xenotalk 14:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The parallel Requests for Comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy (which has four active sub-proposals) have both been open for 30 days now. Closings by an uninvolved editor would be appreciated, and since they are closely related, one closer for all of them would probably be best. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have offered my services in closing this [2]; as there might be potential controversy, I'm gonna hold for an hour or so before acting upon it. Just in-case people shout HELL NO. Best, Chzz ► 20:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've not disappeared, I may as well wait for 0:00 proper time (another 1¼ hours) Chzz ► 22:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Doing... [3] [4] Chzz ► 23:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You're not a level 37 cabal member with at least three discussion closing shoulder tassels, and you don't have the secret headband of consensus detection. Think of the political ramifications of this! Wikipedia will collapse if adminship isn't seen as an upper caste with control over all important happenings! Sven Manguard Wha? 23:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the above post was entirely for humor, except for that last line, that's a barb at what is a real, existing, and problematic admin culture. A round of applause is needed for Chzz here.
- Please see the discussion at WP:BN#Closing the desysop RFCs?. Chzz has withdrawn their closing of the second RfC, so that one still needs to be closed. Regards SoWhy 08:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Request for community sanction against uploading images of Anders Behring Breivik from his manifesto
Hi there. There are numerous ongoing deletion discussions, both here and on Commons, regarding images of Anders Behring Breivik from his manifesto.
Without going into the details, each one has been deleted, and many have been re-uploaded, and then re-put up for deletion, and so on and so forth. We are now in the third round of re-uploading.
The whole thing is compounded by the fact that unlike most FfDs, where the only participants are people that spend time on FfD and know image policy, these ABB discussions are attracting not only Wikipedians who are rehasing arguments that have nothing to do with policy (a lot of ILIKEIT and IHATEIT), but it's attracting people from outside sites that are rehashing the same irrelivant arguements.
It's far past the "it's getting disruptive" stage, and is now in the "please make it stop" phase.
I am asking for a community sanction that essentially says "Any image from the Anders Behring Breivik manifesto is to be deleted per CSD G4 on sight, without further discussion. Repeatedly uploading the image will be seen as a blockable offense" (warning for first upload, block for subsequent uploads).
Maybe in six months we can all have a nice chat about this again, but right now it's just too much. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support wholeheartedly; I'm bored making the same arguments. They're not PD/CC - as detailed in Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_23#File:Anders_Behring_Breivik.jpg (no clear declaration, etc...) and, they fail NFC as living person, and various other reasons (some here).
- They're bouncing back-and-forth between enwiki and Commons; there's been massive interest over the 2 weeks since the attacks to keep some-kind-of-image, and our sluggish bureaucracy has allowed that to continue. This suggestion might close the door. Chzz ► 23:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Example of one chain: en.Wiki upload > Commons upload > en.Wiki reupload. There are similar chains in various stages for the aquatic scene, the police uniform scene, etc. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is just me musing aloud, but... on the face of it I tend to agree that the licensing terms on these images are largely unclear and confusing and we can't sensibly claim they are freely licensed at this point. So, yeh, I support Sven's suggestion. On the other hand he is alive (if detained) se we could possibly deal with the issue - is he able to receive mail in prison? If so, is anyone able to send him a letter which asks him to clarify the licensing in a way which meets ours (and commons) guidelines? Ideally this would resolve most of the issues relating to the images. I'd be happy to draft such a letter, but have no idea where to send it to, or how! :) --Errant (chat!) 00:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- The opening of the book 2083 where these images appear states, "The content of the compendium truly belongs to everyone and is free to be distributed in any way or form. In fact, I ask only one favour of you; I ask that you distribute this book to everyone you know." I don't see what the copyright issue is or why people keep deleting these images. Shii (tock) 02:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's what I've been wondering: it's hard to make a clearer PD release. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- But a lot of the text was taken from copyrighted works, so that is why it was removed from the Commons. We are trying to sort it out on the Commons and having discussions at 2 or 3 places isn't going to work. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Additionally (and apologies that I'm repeating what I've said on a dozen deletion-request pages), the same doc says it is required that the author(s) are credited, and that the intellectual property of this compendium belongs to all Europeans across the European world, the compendium is a compilation of works from multiple courageous individuals throughout the world, and I have written approximately half of the compendium myself - clearly, we do not know which half. Therefore, we have no 'author' information. In addition, we already know that the same document contains other copyrighted content, without appropriate licencing. As for 'fair use'...please see this FFD. Chzz ► 13:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can't imagine someone else took those pictures, or that they are photos of someone else. Shii (tock) 04:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- That isn't the problem. To summarize:
- In terms of Commons/free image: there is no clear licence that is compatible.
- In terms of NFCC: It's a living person (hence, further pics are possible), and it's not historically significant.
- That's been decided by consensus several times now - see the discussion mentioned, and others have been deleted by admins under CSD criteria. Two more have just been deleted from Commons, in Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Anders_Behring_Breivik.jpg and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Anders Behring Breivik portret blackwhite.jpg.
- The problem is, that despite repeated deletion, the files are uploaded repeatedly and bounce back-and-forth between enwiki and commons, with days of discussion between, repeating the same arguments. Meanwhile, since the actual incident of 22 July (18 days ago), we've been displaying the images on the articles. Chzz ► 07:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- That isn't the problem. To summarize:
- I can't imagine someone else took those pictures, or that they are photos of someone else. Shii (tock) 04:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's what I've been wondering: it's hard to make a clearer PD release. Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Request for a SNOW close
It's been open less than 48 hours, but I think the consensus in this AFD is already pretty clear: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 NATO helicopter crash. The only reason I haven't performed a non-admin closure is that I've commented in it myself. Is there an admin willing to invoke WP:SNOW here? Robofish (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I won't close it, although I do agree it'll probably get kept. I did, however, stick a {{notavote}} on it, which I believe also qualifies as the near universal signal of widespread irregularities at an AfD. By the way, there are widespread irregularities at this AfD. I haven't checked the edits, but I have a suspicion that someone has been refactoring comments. How else would we get a "Keep: Not news" argument. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- That edit was not refactored. Here is the diff --After Midnight 0001 01:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. That's an odd one. Either way, there are a good number of unsigned votes and a much higher than normal participation level from IPs. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- That edit was not refactored. Here is the diff --After Midnight 0001 01:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done. --Jayron32 01:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Emergency desysopping
As an FYI, I've initiated a discussion concerning emergency desysopping at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#Emergency desysopping (v3). –xenotalk 01:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Technical restrictions on deletion
I believe that there is a maximum number of revisions that a page can have and be deleted; that if a page has more than a certain number of revisions, deletion is not technically possible. Can someone confirm this?
Thanks in advance, —WFC— TFL notices 04:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the upper limit for deletion is set by the devs to be 5000 edits; though I think that in special cases the devs may be able to delete pages above this limit. It is highly unlikely that a page with over 5000 edits would later be deemed to be a non-notable topic or otherwise need to be deleted. It can be done, IIRC, but not by administrators using the "delete" function. I can't find the "5000 edit" limit enshrined in policy, but it is mentioned in passing at Wikipedia:Don't delete the main page and Wikipedia:Village stocks. --Jayron32 05:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I believe it can be done by Stewards, who have 'bigdelete'. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 05:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think what happened was that compromised sysops kept deleting pages such as Main Page and Canada with several thousand revisions, and deleting and undeleting such pages put a huge strain on the server, so the developers made the change. --Rschen7754 05:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- For one thing, User:Maxim is not, or has not ever been, compromised. And FWIW, Canada should've been deleted a long time ago :) –MuZemike 06:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- That's it, blame Canada... Guy (Help!) 08:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think what happened was that compromised sysops kept deleting pages such as Main Page and Canada with several thousand revisions, and deleting and undeleting such pages put a huge strain on the server, so the developers made the change. --Rschen7754 05:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I believe it can be done by Stewards, who have 'bigdelete'. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 05:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It is 5000 edits, and you can easily test this for yourself (at least as an admin) by clicking "delete" on this page: it will fail. (And you'd have to confirm it anyway). Now that we have revision deletion, it is no longer necessary to delete these huge pages. —Kusma (t·c) 09:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- You know, it was a comment like that the caused one of the big pages to be deleted in the first place, think it was either the main page or the sandbox. "go ahead and click delete, it won't go through"--Jac16888 Talk 10:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help everyone. For the record I'm not an admin, and this wasn't a purely hypothetical question.
Thanks again! —WFC— TFL notices 13:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- What's odd is that we still have the delete button on most big pages, but we don't have it on the Main Page: there's no way anymore for the system to tell us that we can't delete the Main Page :-( Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- There isn't really a hard limit of 5,000 revisions ... it's whether or not MediaWiki *guesses* that the page has 5,000 revisions when you hit the delete button, based on factors which I don't understand at all. It can sometimes be possible for regular admins to delete pages with 7,500 edits, and it can sometimes be impossible for them to delete pages with less than 3,000 edits. These massive deletes/restores are occasionally needed for history merges, where revision deletion is not appropriate. Also see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 16#Deletion restrictions for pages with long histories, which is linked from the village stocks page. Graham87 15:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I believe the delete button on the main page is hidden via css. But you can construct a URL to get the software to tell you that. Just click http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=view and change "view" to "delete" in the URL. (Result: "You can't delete or move the main page.") –xenotalk 17:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I've heard of a way around that, even, but it's untested. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- What's odd is that we still have the delete button on most big pages, but we don't have it on the Main Page: there's no way anymore for the system to tell us that we can't delete the Main Page :-( Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nyttend, I think it's still possible, you just have to be creative. But I'm not going to try it myself. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think you can delete it via these two POSTed URLs:
- Remember the deletion token that this returns.
- Main Page should now be deleted. However, most web browsers will use a GET request, so you will have to program something that only uses POST requests (not hard) to delete it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Go on, then. I bet you a fiver it doesn't work! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ill double that, I know how to do it, and thats not how. Here is how you do it: <removed per WP:BEANS> ΔT The only constant 19:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Go on, then. I bet you a fiver it doesn't work! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think you can delete it via these two POSTed URLs:
- Thanks for the help everyone. For the record I'm not an admin, and this wasn't a purely hypothetical question.
RfC threat
I posted the following on Worm's talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
RfC threat
Worm, you have threatened to drag me through an RfC.
Let me give you advance notice that I shall certainly ignore such a proceeding unless you get the approval of a serious administrator.
On the mathematics project, Charles Matthews, EdJohnston, Geometry Guy, Carl (CBM), CRGreathouse are administrators you might consider. EdJohnston is also on the statistics project. CRGreathouse is also on the economics project. You may also ask any member of ArbCom or any active clerk. This is not an exhaustive list. I have great respect for GWH, but given his positioning on civility, I think that he would be an excellent second "wise man" certifying an RfC worth my time.
This advance notice is to spare us both a waste of time like the ANI, where nearly only the only persons present were already involved.
I remind you of the following policies, which are quoted:
- The following is NOT permitted:
- Personal attacks.
- RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary - note that repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process.
In particular, I have viewed the ANI proceedings as part of a campaign of harassment by Demiurge1000, which you in good faith became enmeshed. I have spent a lot of time responding to criticisms in the ANI, and under no conditions am I willing to spend time on an RfC in the next two months. I have discharged my obligations to the community by responding to voluminous criticisms by Du1000's summoned clique, in great detail, and I am under no obligation to respond again in the near future.
In particular, you should avoid even the appearance of having your RfC "harass or subdue" me, after your having prolonged and expanded an ANI brought by TFD.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, *shrug*. There's no requirement for anyone to engage in an RfC; it just makes you look like an ass if the rest of the community or our insect overlords take an interest. Ironholds (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Worm and I discussed an informal arbitration on his talk page. He wants to do something on wiki, which I would agree to only with a person in whom I have confidence.
- It is hard to see any good coming out of these past drama shows, which seem to be a favored principal activity of those who do not contribute to content. Since Worm, Demiurge1000, and Strange Passerby haven't contributed to pages of any interest to me, and don't discuss the content of the pages in dispute, I probably should not have wasted my time responding to them. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Kiefer, you must notify anyone whom you discuss here. You appear to have forgotten to do so in the case of several of the people you discuss above, so I'll take care of that for you. I would also suggest that you've been given some good advice by a currently sitting arbitrator at Worm's talk page, so you may benefit from considering that carefully, rather than stirring up yet another noticeboard thread here - which I notice you opened only an hour after the existing thread at ANI was closed (so much for not wanting to participate in drama!) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Why don't the three (or however many) of you just not talk to each other and try to avoid the same articles/talk pages? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Fechcoms and company,
- I have suggested that Demiurge1000 and myself agree informally to a voluntary no-interaction ban. Demiurge1000 often appears when I have a minor disagreement with somebody and where he has made no contributions to articles; at best, these interjections are distractions. He has catalyzed most of my disagreements in 2011, I would guess. I have tried to compliment him when he does a good deed, as a way to restoring normal relations, but this seems to have been a failure.
- Worm is usually helpful and always interesting, and so I would dislike a no-interaction ban. However, a no-interaction ban would be preferable to his wasting both our times with a RfC/U, whose (non-rushed) drafting he has announced. He understands that I'm unwilling to participate in an RfC/U in the next months, after I have spent so much time responding to complaints this weekend.
- Third? Oh, I forget Strange_Passerby almost immediately after I forget what he's written, also almost immediately. Thus, a topic ban with him would be irrelevant for me (although it might spare administrators his exhortations to "grow a pair" and block me, etc.).
- Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- KW, I suggested to you on my talk that you drop the stick. You seem unwilling to do so. I strongly suggest you find something else to do other than AN or AN/I before you run smack-dab into an admin. who does posses "a pair". — Ched : ? 18:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- KW has been attempting to persuade Worm that Worm is not allowed to start an WP:RFC/U on KW. I shall certainly ignore such a proceeding unless you get the approval of a serious administrator and you should avoid even the appearance of having your RfC "harass or subdue" me if the ensuing private e-mail doesn't satisfy you, then you may proceed with a public RfC on the outstanding matters, as I have agreed previously (in 2 months), Before insisting on a public irreversible webpage discussion, you should consult an experienced arbitrator and you are unsuitable for drafting even a pre-RfC, at least not by yourself. If he keeps that up, I might be tempted to grow that pair. 19:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)Elen of the Roads (talk)
- I was under the impression that an RfC/U did not require the permission of the subject? If it did, I doubt we'd ever have any. So what is the point of this? -- Atama頭 21:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Coercion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- RfC/Us do not require the permission or the participation of any editor. It's not at all unusual for people who have reason to expect a strongly negative response from the community to whinge about the prospect of the unpleasant event, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Preemptive harassment of perceived harasser or anti-harassment harassment? I like WP:DR so much. War is peace, etc. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- As I explained on Worm's page, I am more likely to participate if any RfC has some appearance of fairness and focus, which the ANI did not: "How many therapists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One, but first the lightbulb must want to change." I edit mainly mathematics and statistics articles, and I object to characterizations of "my behavior" by RfA/ANI enthusiasts (which some of you confuse with "the community") who have never contributed to any of the articles I've worked on and at least one of whom has carried on a campaign of harassment and personal attacks for months. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there any reason why you have not been blocked for incivility? This discussion is silly. Move for close (and any required behavioural remedies). elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 00:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Two administrators' repeat the sexist phrase "grow a pair", after I had objected to that on the previous ANI (and noted that I display a testicle-cancer survivor userbox) and you want to block me for incivility?
- Bury the rag deep in your face, Now is the time for your tears.
- Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does Kiefer.Wolfowitz seem to be constantly getting into fights with... err... everyone? This is at least the fourth thread I can remember in the past few months in which Kiefer.Wolfowitz has been a party (in not a good way), and at least the second where interaction bans involving him have been suggested. Clearly, at least a good part of the problem lies with Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Sun-free photovoltaics.jpg
I uploaded the image File:Sun-free photovoltaics.jpg which got speedy deleted almost instantly, inspite of me specifically mentioning the licensing information. I asked the deleting administrator here, but he seems to have gone offline. Hence I am posting here. Thanks. Suraj T 12:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
BAG candidacy
I've nominated myself for BAG membership; comments, questions, and !votes are welcome at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Hersfold. Thanks. :-) Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Unilaterally changing template through full protection without consensus
User:Joy made a series of changes to a highly used and fully protected template {{primary sources}} [7], that as far as I can tell have no consensus now, and did not have it either when he made those changes on July 29. The talk page at the time [8] simply looks like he supervoted the template to his preferred version. Now I am told there is no consensus to revert that [9]. I thought consensus favored long-standing versions of a highly visible template. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Consensus also favors not WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I'll revert it if you're so offended by the new version, but it's a bit hard to understand why the old status quo is most preferable when your position seems to be in the clear minority both at Template talk:Primary sources and at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 4#Template:Third-party. However, I do realize that I may have introduced bias in listening to only to the vocal minority, generally speaking - the template is applied to >20k articles and only a dozen people are discussing it - we do not have a representative sample. Can another admin please review this? If they wish to restore the mention of third-party sources in the original template until the next round of discussion, that's fine by me. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, maybe just undoing my very last edit would be sufficient? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, in a nutshell: for a long time the {{primary sources}} template directed editors to add third-party sources. I believe that in 99% of the 20K article where it was added, this is the fix required. The vocal supporters of the two-template system (the other template being the new {{third-party}}) say that a secondary source is not the same as a third-party source. I acknowledge that conceptual difference. But, I don't think the addition of non-independent secondary sources is actually going to fix (WP:N or NPOV-wise) the vast majority of the articles where {{primary sources}} is already used. Ergo chaining {{primary sources}} to no longer ask for third-party sources, which is what you have done, even if it's more "orthogonal" relative to the template's name, perverts the reason why the template was added to all these articles. With the unfortunate change in the template's wording someone could "fix" (and justifiably remove the template from) an article about, say, a book or piece of software by adding some secondary source written by the very authors or publisher of the same work, like a blurb on Amazon or citing themselves from an interview as to how awesome their stuff is. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
When someone gets a moment
The UAA bot testbed could use some eyes (and tools, if need be). I think everything's properly marked at this point; just needs emptying out appropriately. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Return of Help Desk troll, eyes needed
There's not much to be done except play "whack-a-mole" with rev-del to stop him, but a frequent help desk troll who edits from the 66.87 range has returned recently. Admins can view some of his handywork here and at the help desk history page. I'm still working on digging up some of his old ramblings in the past, but they pretty much follow this exact pattern. This is more of a "heads up" than anything, just because he became active again. --Jayron32
- For that specific diff, I already emailed oversight, just after it was posted. Ticket#2011080910002526 Chzz ► 07:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I just got another one, should we be blocking the individual IPs, or assume that xe's already switched by then? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I rangeblocked 66.87.4.0/22 for two weeks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Probably a necessary block, but please keep a watch on CAT:UNB for likely collateral damage. I looked into pretty much that exact same rangeblock, and that range is quite active; there are LOTS of good contributions over the years in the low 66.87s. Perhaps the block was unavoidable, given this pattern of problems, but just be prepared to deal with the collateral damage. --Jayron32 17:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I rangeblocked 66.87.4.0/22 for two weeks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I just got another one, should we be blocking the individual IPs, or assume that xe's already switched by then? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Motion regarding Gilabrand's AE Block for WP:ARBPIA
The arbitration enforcement block placed on Gilabrand (talk · contribs) related to the Palestine-Israel articles case is provisionally suspended as of 25 August or the passage of this motion, whichever is the latter. Gilabrand is reminded that articles in the area of conflict remain the subject of discretionary sanctions, and are currently subject to a 1RR restriction. Gilabrand is further reminded that any future problematic editing following the removal of editing restrictions will viewed dimly.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 15:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
COI, promotion and username
Michizane (talk · contribs) JacklynFMPR (talk · contribs)
Hmmm, I hope this is the right place, multiple issues, I think admins needed.
Okay, starting here, Avery Watts, I am planning to depuff and list for deletion. Looking into contributors I noticed user:Michizane (who I believe to be his publicist working for Papillon Entertainment which I have just csd'd as blatant advertising), who also contributes heavily to articles about Kari Feinstein, Mike McGuiness and their company Feinstein/McGuiness Public Relations amongst others.
As if by magic, both companies are based in LA, there seems to be a lot of COI, if someone has some free time to go and review Michizane's edits that would be revealing I believe, maybe the FMPR agency is notable, but I don't think the two founders reach WP notability standards, so this appears to be a lot of free self-promotion.
Also, JacklynFMPR is an spa, obviously working for the company, hasn't edited since October 2010, but that's a banned username if ever I saw one and a blatant COI.
A bit of a can of worms, I'm sure by digging deeper that you'll find a whole bunch of interesting 'stuff'. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Addendum Posting to JacklynFMPR's tp, I saw this, [10], which makes me believe that the user 'went underground' and has probably morphed into another username, should be able to identify POV, COI editors by checking the edit history of the articles concerned. CaptainScreebo Parley! 20:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)