Tazerdadog (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 457: | Line 457: | ||
::::::No, the See also section was specifically [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATazerdadog&type=revision&diff=760951890&oldid=760931746 exempted from the scope of the RfC] by the closer, whether you want to admit it or not. [[User:Castncoot|Castncoot]] ([[User talk:Castncoot|talk]]) 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
::::::No, the See also section was specifically [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATazerdadog&type=revision&diff=760951890&oldid=760931746 exempted from the scope of the RfC] by the closer, whether you want to admit it or not. [[User:Castncoot|Castncoot]] ([[User talk:Castncoot|talk]]) 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Put the stick down.'''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]]''''' ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]]) 04:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
:::::::Put the stick down.'''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]]''''' ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]]) 04:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
I have made a slight amendment to my closing statement, reverting to my initial version. This hopefully renders the see also section moot. I apoligise for my error and the extra confusion it has caused. The change should be minor in the context of the entire close. [[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 04:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
== Duolingo has dropped its Immersion translation system; perhaps Wikipedia can get it; it's far better than machine translation == |
== Duolingo has dropped its Immersion translation system; perhaps Wikipedia can get it; it's far better than machine translation == |
Revision as of 04:18, 21 January 2017
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 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 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.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
![](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 is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need 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
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu
(Initiated 44 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
{{not done}}
Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)- Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League
(Initiated 76 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) Already done by The Wordsmith, theleekycauldron, and Tamzin. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 75 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 74 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 72 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 66 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 [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Israel and apartheid#RfC: Wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism
(Initiated 56 days ago on 26 April 2024) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Doing... — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Done — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals
(Initiated 51 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
- (Initiated 50 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
- (Initiated 48 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
- (Initiated 47 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA
Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:List of best-selling Sega Dreamcast games#RFC on inclusion cutoff
(Initiated 50 days ago on 3 May 2024) Expired RFC where everyone seemed to be in agreement.98.228.137.44 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
done=yes
(Initiated 49 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 45 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 42 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:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#RFC: Palestinian genocide accusations
(Initiated 28 days ago on 24 May 2024) Little activity in the past week or so. Much discussion has been had and many sources have been reviewed. A careful review of the discussion and arguments made at the RFC should allow a close. Dylanvt (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close
(Initiated 22 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 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 | 0 | 14 | 75 | 89 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 23 | 32 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities
(Initiated 79 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Done by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe
(Initiated 76 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Done by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres
(Initiated 75 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Done by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers
(Initiated 71 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Done by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists
(Initiated 69 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Done by... Pppery — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers
(Initiated 68 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Done by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people
(Initiated 56 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Done by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history
(Initiated 56 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Already done by Timrollpickering. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau
(Initiated 54 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Done by Pppery. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge
(Initiated 52 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Done by Jay. SilverLocust 💬 07:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024
(Initiated 30 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Berig, does it really need an admin? Tom B (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- After looking at it, I can see why an admin was requested, Tom B (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS
(Initiated 25 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:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024
(Initiated 20 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro
(Initiated 18 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
I am requesting administrative attention to the title of this page, to its lede sentence, and to its content in general. There is a history of Requests for Comments and Requested Moves, concerning whether the subject is a dialect of Punjabi, a language variety of Punjabi, a language, or more than one of these at the same time. It appears to me that some of the participants in these conflicts have difficulty in stating their position and difficulty in understanding policies and procedures in the English Wikipedia because their command of English is limited. I became aware of the conflict on 13 December when one of the editors filed a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_145#Saraiki_dialect. Discussion was difficult, and eventually the DRN thread was closed on 21 December as resolved by a previous RFC. Since then I have received requests on my talk page for assistance, but I have difficulty understanding them. I see from the template at the top of Talk:Saraiki dialect that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are available, presumably under India-Pakistan arbitration. I haven’t researched the status of Saraiki in detail, but I see that language scholars have discussed its status on the dialect continuum in depth without a final resolution. (Thanks to User:Paine Ellsworth for a thoughtful closure.) My own thought is only that the lede sentence should agree with the title rather than contradicting it, and that the controversy should then be dealt with (as it is) in the body of the article. The lede currently states that it is a language, although the title characterizes it as a dialect.
Administrative attention is requested, but administrators should be aware that some of the editors seem to have extreme difficulty in communicating in written English. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW the "some accounts" are all just one prolific sockmaster. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LanguageXpert. I've been handling that socking for a while now, as has Bbb23, the page is under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions and the talk page has been tagged as such. At this point, after semi protecting the talk page, the discussion is between good faith editors. I don't think any admin action is required at this point unless it's to block any fresh socks. —SpacemanSpiff 00:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
And that's the sock |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Robert McClenon: This is a content dispute which was decided as dialect by 2 move requests, 1 move review 1 mediation request, 1 Talk page consensus (in 2013), 1 RFC and 2 Dispute resolutions. If my IP series was used by LanguageXpert in 2012 that is not as much rule violation than not accepting decisions of all such WP discussions. Rule should be same for all. Here system is supporting a user Uanfala who is not ready to accept any rule any moderator and talk page consensus. Please restore 1 October pre-dispute version as per rules. 39.60.199.14 (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC) I WANT JUSTICE |
- To Robert McClenon, SpacemanSpiff and other administrators on the board: I agree with Robert McClenon that something must be done. A lot of good work is being done with sockpuppets; however, in this case I've seen little that can be described as definitive. Words like "likely" and "possilikely" say to me that we cannot be certain that what we have isn't a public computer, such as that found in a library, used by several editors who don't have a good handle on the English language. More to the point is the disposition of the title of the Saraiki dialect article. I closed a requested move in October as Not moved, which went to Move review and was endorsed, and now here we are less than three months later with yet another requested move for pretty much the same thing. The present move request, which has just been closed as "No consensus", should have been closed procedurally because it was opened long before it should have been. A "No consensus" close will just say to involved editors that they can come back in two or three months and try again, while the "Not moved" close made in October should have meant that the next requested move to the same page title should wait much longer. Since I just noticed the "No consensus" close, I guess I should take that to Move review to have it changed to "Procedural close", but I'll wait a bit to see what ya'll say. Paine Ellsworth u/c 16:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I consider this to have been a valid move request. There is no formal six month waiting period for moves and a glance at the changes to the article since the last request show a very different article with more and better referencing. The correct procedure going forward is for someone to reopen the move request with a more focused title suggestion (as the closer has suggested). --regentspark (comment) 17:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- And, frankly, I find your comments on the socks and the entire SPI process incomprehensible. While, in this case, the socks couldn't be more obvious had they arrived preceded by a band playing "Here Comes the Sock", more generally the SPI process relies on likely and possibility because, of course, it is never impossible that someone else has used a particular computer or IP. --regentspark (comment) 17:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sockpuppets who can't write in English are a double waste of time. I think that we need a notice that overly quick move requests now will be dealt with by topic-bans under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that a notice is the way to go, because frankly, the editors involved thus far have only the article's best interests in mind, even though some of their tactics are very questionable. Paine Ellsworth u/c 17:11, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sockpuppets who can't write in English are a double waste of time. I think that we need a notice that overly quick move requests now will be dealt with by topic-bans under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - I think that if anybody has a conduct issue here it is Paine Ellsworth. After closing the previous move request reasonably, but prefixed by WP:OR comments unreasonably, they became heavily involved and essentially sabotaged the latest move request. This is not the behaviour expected of an experienced editor. If they have a position on the issue, they should take it and leave the other people alone to have their own say.
- As for the issue raised by Robert McClenon, the lead paragraph seems to reflect the current consensus among the reliable sources. If that seems to contradict the page title, I think it has more to do our own damaged consensus process on Wikipedia. Nobody is stopping the pro-dialect camp from bringing their own sources and editing the text accordingly. I don't see why this should be an issue for admin attention.
- (disclaimer) I am an uninvolved editor here. I have this page on my watch list merely because it is sock-infested and needs attention from time to time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment
The correct procedure going forward is for someone to reopen the move request with a more focused title suggestion
. This means starting a new RM, right? What would be the ideal timeframe then? – Uanfala (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Six months to a year, I think. You saw how little participation there was in the last round. Nothing will be achieved by filing any request any time soon. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, the closer of the RM has self-reverted, so the discussion is open again. Should it stay so? If yes, then I think there's definitely a need for some refactoring. As an involved party, it's not appropriate for me to do that, so any volunteers? I'd be happy for any number of my comments there to be collapsed away from view, the more the better. – Uanfala (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well. I went ahead and collapsed the comments by the socks [4]. I think the same should be done with the entire exchange between me and Paine Ellsworth (though Amakuru and Kautilya3 were briefly involved too) that happened right after Kautilya3's !vote. There's some bickering on my part there, as well as clarifications of misunderstandings that I don't see as contributing much to the general discussion. If no-one of the involved editors objects, then I'll proceed to collapse that as well (which should be acceptable per what I understand of WP:REFACTOR). – Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ah, the closer of the RM has self-reverted, so the discussion is open again. Should it stay so? If yes, then I think there's definitely a need for some refactoring. As an involved party, it's not appropriate for me to do that, so any volunteers? I'd be happy for any number of my comments there to be collapsed away from view, the more the better. – Uanfala (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Six months to a year, I think. You saw how little participation there was in the last round. Nothing will be achieved by filing any request any time soon. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ideally, someone - preferably an uninvolved admin - should close the 'procedural' part. (I've added my comment at the end.) Collapsing the discussion between you and Paine Ellsworth would require their agreement so, if you do collapse it, let them know on their talk page. --regentspark (comment) 13:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I am good with how that part of the discussion within the RM was closed (but not collapsed). I've said all that needs to be said and nothing needs to be repeated. If editors in this case decide to ignore community consensus and WP:IAR, then there is no more I can do about it. And I hope all are happy with the precedent this sets. We can probably expect to see more of this at Hindko dialect. Happy New Year to all! Paine Ellsworth u/c 17:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, hopefully, someone will look in on this discussion, because there appear to be several editors who are in agreement to omit the natural disambiguator, "dialect", in favor of the ambiguous Saraiki bare title, which may apply to several articles as seen on the dab page. It has not passed the test for primary topic, which might also be given to the Saraiki people article. It is my contention that the proposer, who has edit warred in that article and at Hindko dialect, yet another page the proposer wants to change to Hindko language, wants the changed title to "Saraiki" just so they can come back a little later and start another RM to complete the change to Saraiki language. The proposer is using baby steps to get what they want. Please put a stop to that out-of-process move request that goes sharply against the community consensus that has shaped the instructions at WP:NOTMOVED. Paine Ellsworth u/c 17:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed – it will really be helpful if more editors participated, as there's definitely a need for a broad consensus to end the controversies. – Uanfala (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Uanfala – your "agreed" tells me that I may have not made myself clear. I am asking here for administrative intervention to put a stop to your out-of-process move request. In other words, I am asking administrators for a "procedural close". Are you sure you agree? Paine Ellsworth u/c 04:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- There was a sub-discussion about the validity of the RM and it was closed a week ago. – Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure the administrators know that. This AN request/discussion is still open, however. Perhaps this is a good time for you to end the puzzlement and say why you opened a new RM so soon after the previous one, fully knowing that a new RM should wait a considerable time before being opened? Or were you unaware of that? And now, thanks to that closed validity discussion, now that you are aware that your request is out of process and against community consensus, are you now willing to withdraw the request? Paine Ellsworth u/c 15:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- There was a sub-discussion about the validity of the RM and it was closed a week ago. – Uanfala (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Uanfala – your "agreed" tells me that I may have not made myself clear. I am asking here for administrative intervention to put a stop to your out-of-process move request. In other words, I am asking administrators for a "procedural close". Are you sure you agree? Paine Ellsworth u/c 04:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The sock speaketh again |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I agree with Paine Ellsworth. This user is also destroying other relevant dialect continuum such as Hindi[5], example [6]. Every dialect is language for him. Cant we ban such non linguistic user from editing linguistic pages ? Is there any option ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Showermixer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC) |
The RM has now been closed in a way that gets me scratching my head [7]. I don't think it's right that everyone's time has ended up having been wasted because of what appears like a minor technical quibble. What do we do, Amakuru, RegentsPark? – Uanfala (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- @BD2412:. Most likely BD2412 has missed the pointer in Talk:Saraiki that says that the discussion is taking place at Talk:Saraiki (dialect). If a closer finds consensus to move, then it is fairly clear that the article would move to Saraiki and Saraiki would move to Saraiki (disambiguation). If the closer finds no consensus to move then the entire thing is moot anyway. But a procedural close at this points is, at best, overly bureaucratic. Perhaps BD2412 would consider re-evaluating their close? Since the close is purely procedural, we could always start a new request but, given the volume of time everyone has already spent on this, that doesn't seem particularly productive. --regentspark (comment) 02:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is not at all clear from the discussion that there is a consensus that the language is the primary topic of the term. What people think about the use of "dialect" or "language" or some other disambiguator is not relevant to that point, which is a point that needs to be resolved before the existing disambiguation page can be moved. I therefore also do not think that another discussion would be a waste of time, as editors would merely restate their views on the use of "dialect" and also consider whether some other disambiguating term was appropriate. For those who have already participated, it would take very little time to present a view on this. Discussions like these are only time consuming for the few editors who find it worth their time to litigate every point to exhaustion. bd2412 T 02:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your summary above, honestly, makes little sense to me since almost no one is arguing that the language is the primary topic. But if that's what you've gathered from the discussion, then so be it. Uanfala, I guess you have to reopen another move request with two moves: Saraiki (dialect) to Saraiki and Saraiki to Saraiki (disambiguation). Alternatively, you could take this to a move review (WP:RM/R) and see what happens there but a move request may be the easier of the two. --regentspark (comment) 03:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm really not willing to be dealing with this anymore. Would anyone like to take the initiative now? Amakuru, Kautilya3, RegentsPark? – Uanfala (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know really, Uanfala. I will be brutally honest here, and say that like BD2412 I never found the primary topic argument especially persuasive (and apologies to BD2412 for questioning the close on that basis). We don't normally label a language primary topic over the people that speak it, where an ethnicity and a language share the same name, and the reasons for doing so here were much more to do with striking a "compromise" and to at least remove the POV word "dialect" from the title even if consensus couldn't be gathered for a switch to "language", than a genuine belief that the article was primary. However, having gone through this exercise, it has become ever more clear to me that the majority of sources tell us that it's considered a language by the people themselves, and by the international community. I probed deeply to be shown some sources, academic or otherwise, which explictly told us it's a dialect, but I didn't see any. So given BD2412's permission above to continue discussing the language qusetion, I think we should have one more try at moving to Saraiki language. Even if the usual people turn up and try to shout the move down again, with the weight of Kautilya3's reliable source evidence, I think it's an argument that could be won. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC issue should be discussed on the talk page and, in my view, most people are misinterpreting the guidelines. The guidance asks you to consider how likely it is that when somebody searches for "Saraiki" they are searching for the language rather than the people. The guidelines have been interpreted correctly in deciding Kannada and Malayalam, but incorrectly for Telugu and possibly Tamil. (For Hindu and Urdu, the issue never arose.) As far as I can see, "Saraiki" is similar to those. I don't see any evidence that Saraiki is the name of a people. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know really, Uanfala. I will be brutally honest here, and say that like BD2412 I never found the primary topic argument especially persuasive (and apologies to BD2412 for questioning the close on that basis). We don't normally label a language primary topic over the people that speak it, where an ethnicity and a language share the same name, and the reasons for doing so here were much more to do with striking a "compromise" and to at least remove the POV word "dialect" from the title even if consensus couldn't be gathered for a switch to "language", than a genuine belief that the article was primary. However, having gone through this exercise, it has become ever more clear to me that the majority of sources tell us that it's considered a language by the people themselves, and by the international community. I probed deeply to be shown some sources, academic or otherwise, which explictly told us it's a dialect, but I didn't see any. So given BD2412's permission above to continue discussing the language qusetion, I think we should have one more try at moving to Saraiki language. Even if the usual people turn up and try to shout the move down again, with the weight of Kautilya3's reliable source evidence, I think it's an argument that could be won. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm really not willing to be dealing with this anymore. Would anyone like to take the initiative now? Amakuru, Kautilya3, RegentsPark? – Uanfala (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Your summary above, honestly, makes little sense to me since almost no one is arguing that the language is the primary topic. But if that's what you've gathered from the discussion, then so be it. Uanfala, I guess you have to reopen another move request with two moves: Saraiki (dialect) to Saraiki and Saraiki to Saraiki (disambiguation). Alternatively, you could take this to a move review (WP:RM/R) and see what happens there but a move request may be the easier of the two. --regentspark (comment) 03:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is not at all clear from the discussion that there is a consensus that the language is the primary topic of the term. What people think about the use of "dialect" or "language" or some other disambiguator is not relevant to that point, which is a point that needs to be resolved before the existing disambiguation page can be moved. I therefore also do not think that another discussion would be a waste of time, as editors would merely restate their views on the use of "dialect" and also consider whether some other disambiguating term was appropriate. For those who have already participated, it would take very little time to present a view on this. Discussions like these are only time consuming for the few editors who find it worth their time to litigate every point to exhaustion. bd2412 T 02:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- To editor Uanfala: time was wasted only by those who think it was wasted. So "everyone's" does not really apply, Uanfala. This is just another case where you make a hasty generalization. Rather than give up, though, or rather than a new RM, you might consider a discussion where objective, uninvolved editors will come in and make their assessment. Here I speak of a request-for-comment type of discussion that might lead to a new RM down the road, or might not. While I have since October thought you were wrong about changing "dialect" to "language" in these articles, I have also thought that, since I am not a linguist and try only to go with those scientists, I could still very well be wrong. Your argument has garnered strong support, such as that of Amakuru and others, so there really is no telling how a well-formed RfC might turn out. There are other options. However, I would strongly recommend that you consider continuing such a discussion in RfC form so as to gather objective opinions on the matter. Paine Ellsworth u/c 17:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Starting an RfC would make sense if the RM discussion were inconclusive, or if there wasn't enough participation. But the RM was widely advertised, and it received more participation than most of the language-related RMs and RfCs I've seen so far. I'm not sure I unserstand what you mean for editors to be "objective" in this case, Paine Ellsworth. If it's about being uninvolved – as far as I remember, apart from you, me and the sheriff, everyone else in the discussion was uninvolved.
- As for RegentsPark and Amakuru's suggestions for starting a new RM, I think it would come across as somewhat silly to ask all the participants if they could please come back and restate what they had already said. And at any rate, I don't believe this is likely to elicit much of a response.
- All the above options would make sense if the RM had been inconclusive. But inconclusive it was not – I should stand corrected if I'm wrong, but I see a clear consensus for moving to Saraiki, and the primary topic arguments, even if hidden inside walls of text, are clear and compelling. In my view, this is a case where a more review is by far the most reasonable way forward, and the one that is likely to place the least workload on the community. But I might be wrong as I don't know these processes very well, so if anyone thinks this might not be the best option, they should speak out. Absent any further input, I will start one in a couple of days. – Uanfala (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, to answer your question about objectivity, it is explained at the RfC link I gave you:
- The RfC process
uses a system of centralized noticeboards and random, bot-delivered invitations to advertise discussions to uninvolved editors.
- That is how objective opinions are obtained. If you want to take the close decision to MR, then that is also a choice, but it has been recommended that more discussion is needed in order to reach a consensus on the matter. So I still think that an RfC would be superior to a Move review discussion. It's your choice, of course, and whatever you choose, I wish you a Happy New Year and the best of everything to you and yours! Paine Ellsworth u/c 15:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Block review: Enthusiast01 (Ewawer)/Bullaful
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Going by Bullaful (talk · contribs)'s most recent post on his talk page, it may be that he would like a review of his block. I recognized Bullaful as Enthusiast01 (talk · contribs), who was formerly known as Ewawer, a longtime Wikipedian who was often productive. (If someone thinks it's a good idea for a CheckUser to make sure that I was correct in my identification, please do. I recognize that even though I am usually correct in identifying socks, I can be wrong. I very much doubt that I am wrong in this case, but technical data supporting the identification wouldn't hurt.) Diannaa blocked Enthusiast01 for copyright issues. When I recognized Bullaful, I suggested that he consider appealing his block instead of using a new account; I also asked Diannaa on her talk page if she would consider unblocking the Enthusiast01 account; it seems she said no. Full discussion seen here. After Bullaful admitted to being Enthusiast01, Diannaa blocked the new account as well. On his talk page, Bullaful argued the following after the block:
Bullaful's argument
|
---|
|
Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- The appeal could perhaps spend less time accusing other people of bad practices and more explaining what their understanding of copyright is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- If he wishes to get unblocked what he needs to do is explain to us how copyright law applies to Wikipedia editing and how he proposes to do better in the future. I'm not seeing that in this post. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- If this is an appeal, I'm an apple tart. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Enthusiast101 is stale, but since this is an unblock appeal and there's already been evidence of socking, I ran CheckUser. Bullaful is also editing as Rogr101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); actually, Rogr101 is the older account, so it's the master. If there's any doubt about the technical evidence (and there isn't any) this is awfully damning. Rogr101 has been indef blocked, and I don't see any sleeper accounts. Katietalk 04:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- KrakatoaKatie (Katie), as seen with this link, I identified Rogr101 as an Ewawer sock as well. I remember commenting about it on Dennis Brown's talk page, but it was dropped after that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- My point, Flyer, is that he's already evading an indefinite block. The link you gave is four years old. If you had already identified Rogr101 as a sock, you should have listed it here. I'm not going to seriously consider an unblock request from someone who simply wants one of his sockpuppets unblocked so he can resume doing what he wants to do in violation of just about every policy we have against block evasion. He has three accounts that we know of and now wants to edit from two of them? Nope. Katietalk 13:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- KrakatoaKatie (Katie), as seen with this link, I identified Rogr101 as an Ewawer sock as well. I remember commenting about it on Dennis Brown's talk page, but it was dropped after that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Katie, going by what I stated on Ewawer's talk page and to Dennis Brown four years ago, I clearly was not sure if Ewawer knew about the WP:Socking policy and whether or not the Rogr101 account was a WP:Clean start account. After all, he was not as familiar with Wikipedia's rules as I was (he still isn't), and it did appear that he had dropped the Ewawer account to edit as Rogr101. He stopped using the Rogr101 account after I identified him. He did not start to use it again until December 4, 2016 at 03:45. His Ewawer account had been blocked by Diannaa months before December. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - the user should probably read WP:NOTTHEM and be sure to understand and respond to the reason of the block (copyright issues are one of the most serious types of problems here). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
See here. I think that Ewawer would like to be unblocked so that he comment in this thread. Ewawer is the oldest account, so maybe unblock that one to make his case in this thread. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- This post shows a good understanding of what our expectations are from a copyright point of view. I will ask him at User talk:Bullaful if he is also prepared to stop socking and if he will make that commitment I will unblock his original account (User:Enthusiast01) if nobody has any objections. As always, I will scrutinize the user's edits daily to watch for further copyright violations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Update: So far Bullaful/Enthusiast01 has not responded to my unblock conditions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've done all I can to help him on this block issue. I'm done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Any chance a CheckUser can look for sleepers? @Bbb23 and DoRD:? Blackmane (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- As noted above, KrakatoaKatie ran a check a bit over a week ago, so I'm not sure that there is any value in running another one just yet. —DoRD (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak oppose mostly because of the sockpuppetry. The unblock request does seem to indicate that the user understands what copyright is, but doesn't yet understand that you can't save a copyright-violating edit at all, ever, even if you're planning to come back to fix it later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- The diff Dianaaa linked above, a response to a post I made on Bullafull's TP, is, from a good faith persepctive, probably sufficient to indicate that they understand that copyright vio's cannot be temporarily saved. However, given that there has been no activity for some time, in response or as socks, makes it hard to see where the unblock discussion can go. I would suggest that this discussion be parked pending some response from them. Blackmane (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Spider-Man
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please make a page that redirects 🕷👨 to Spider-Man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie Faxx (talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Could an admin please take a look at this user's edit's? I've made the relevant AIV report, but it turns out he's been creating crap redirects all over the place, which need deleting. GoldenRing (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think "crap redirects all over the place" is something of an exaggeration. I've deleted several implausible ones, and one other is at WP:RFD, but I'm not seeing a big problem here from an editor who has made only a little over 20 edits in six months. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Googling https://www.google.com/search?q=%F0%9F%95%B7%F0%9F%91%A8&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 returns results for Spiderman. But is anyone actually going to try entering 🕷👨 in the Wikipedia search box? --B (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- 🕷👨 remains a redlink. GoldenRing (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Richie Faxx: That isn't a plausible search term, so
Not done. —DoRD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @DoRD: I'm re-pinging Richie Faxx for you. Your previous attempt to do so didn't work because you didn't sign your comment properly. Graham87 06:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Individual characters of this sort are useful redirects, if nothing else because people often can't see what the character is, so they can use a link from the character to see what it depicts. For example, when viewing this thread yesterday on a public computer, I saw 🕷 as a little box — I knew what it was because of the request, but had I seen it in isolation, I wouldn't have had a clue what it was. That being said, combinations of one character with other text, or combinations of more than one character together, are almost never useful: you won't use the combination unless you already know the constituent parts, so you'll be able to find the target. See the deletion discussion for 🎈 release at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 25, for example. Nyttend (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- @DoRD: I'm re-pinging Richie Faxx for you. Your previous attempt to do so didn't work because you didn't sign your comment properly. Graham87 06:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Really disappointed that this thread wasn't about the possibility that Spider Man was editing his own article.... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Me too :( --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- No editing your own article dressed as Spider-Man.--WaltCip (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Me too :( --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
CSD Backlog
We are starting to get a bit backed up at CSD. There are currently more than 200 articles waiting for admin review/action. I am going to start at the bottom of the alphabet, if someone else wants to start at the other end or somewhere in the middle...? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- It was mostly G13s, which have been taken care of by Fastily, many less to look through now! Sam Walton (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- That helps! -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Daily Mail RfC
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Daily Mail RfC
When the time comes, this one really needs an experienced closer (and perhaps more than one, given the controversial nature of the RfC). --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Seconded. The current hotly contested topic of fakeness of news makes this a political hot potato. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- And you know who's taking those tasty hot potatoes out of our children's mouths? Immigrants! I'm outraged too, etc, etc. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 08:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- But what is this going to do to my house price? ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The EU, gays and travellers have already done the damage to that. Come on, don't you believe the Mail at all? I'm outraged too. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- As I've pointed out at the RFC, the Daily Mail have helpfully made the case for me by putting "Astronauts on board the International Space Station are hiding evidence of aliens" on their website's front page today. (Presumably the aliens are planning to land in YOUR TOWN to steal the jobs of HARD WORKING WHITE PEOPLE.) ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I bet they killed Princess Diana as well. Bastards. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- wow, that's...that's special. I can't say I understand the British print media all that well, but in the U.S. this is the sort of headline we expect from trash tabloids only sold at supermarkets that ere not taken all that seriously by the general public. I sincerely hope that is also the case in the UK. (We save the real garbage for our broadcast and internet media (is that better or worse, I really don't know)) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The Daily Mail is a trash tabloid sold at supermarkets... Its also got a successful history of printing duff stories that get picked up by mainstream media (including those in the US). In its own way its very successful. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- wow, that's...that's special. I can't say I understand the British print media all that well, but in the U.S. this is the sort of headline we expect from trash tabloids only sold at supermarkets that ere not taken all that seriously by the general public. I sincerely hope that is also the case in the UK. (We save the real garbage for our broadcast and internet media (is that better or worse, I really don't know)) Beeblebrox (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I bet they killed Princess Diana as well. Bastards. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- As I've pointed out at the RFC, the Daily Mail have helpfully made the case for me by putting "Astronauts on board the International Space Station are hiding evidence of aliens" on their website's front page today. (Presumably the aliens are planning to land in YOUR TOWN to steal the jobs of HARD WORKING WHITE PEOPLE.) ‑ Iridescent 19:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- The EU, gays and travellers have already done the damage to that. Come on, don't you believe the Mail at all? I'm outraged too. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- But what is this going to do to my house price? ‑ Iridescent 18:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I would close it but this box on my userpage probably prevents me from doing so. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I might be willing to close it (or act as one of several closers), depending on how things look once it's done. Sunrise (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- All joking aside, the 30 days runs out on Monday, 06 February 2017, and at by time we really need an uninvolved closer or closers to evaluate the sometimes subtle arguments and who can deal with the inevitable challenge that will be filed no matter which way the decision goes. Sunrise, who volunteered above, may run into extra opposition because he isn't an administrator. Any other volunteers? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Go on, put my name down against it. I believe I will be unavailable on the 6th but can tackle it on the 7th if no-one else gets there first. I need to get back into the swing of things here, what better way than by tackling a controversial and high-profile RFC? Yunshui 雲水 13:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm also willing to close either alone, or (preferably) with a couple of others. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- All joking aside, the 30 days runs out on Monday, 06 February 2017, and at by time we really need an uninvolved closer or closers to evaluate the sometimes subtle arguments and who can deal with the inevitable challenge that will be filed no matter which way the decision goes. Sunrise, who volunteered above, may run into extra opposition because he isn't an administrator. Any other volunteers? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Note that many of the examples cited are either of "celebrity gossip" for which I find no sources actually reliable, and "headline claims" again for which no source should be asserted. Note that the article with the headline "Is Nasa hiding aliens? Astronaut covers up evidence of mystery flashing lights moving past the space station, UFO hunters claim" is specifically about "wild claims" by "a group of UFO hunters" and is not a claim that NASA is hiding anything at all, and specifically is not the claim made above by a colleague here. The actual article clearly states: At least that's the latest wild claim made by a group of UFO hunters who believe they have spotted strange flashing lights near the ISS. In short, the DM is accurate on the topic. When giving "examples" it behooves us all to use accurate examples, lest Wikipedia be viewed, itself, as the laughingstock. Collect (talk) 13:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Did someone mention hooves?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- No source that I know of is actually good for celebrity gossip as I have iterated. The article you link to, in the actual article, states simply: "In a recent post on her app, the reality star revealed her secret for keeping her ever-changing nails strong and healthy: Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream, a product that was originally formulated to repair the hooves of million-dollar thoroughbred racehorses." Which, as far as "celebrity gossip" goes, is extraordinarily non-contentious. The general claim about that cream has even been in The New York Times [8] and thus I fail to see why the DM is different in the case at hand from that esteemed journal. "Well‐Touled Cream They say that the late Elizabeth Arden used to work ‐her eyelash cream into her racehorses’ manes and tails to make them more luxuriant. Now we have a horse and cream story in reverse. It seems that stable grooms used to massage a cream into thoroughbreds’ hooves to keep them from splitting. After a while, women grooms began noticing an ,improvement in their own fingernails, which they attributed to the frequent use of the ungent. So, naturally, someone came along and decided to refine the preparation and package it for humans. Now we have Barielle Nail Strengthener Cream, a pleasant‐feeling concoction which seems to be improving our ragged cuticles. Saks carries it, at $6 and $10." Note that the typos are courtesy of that esteemed journal as well. Collect (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hot tip, Collect. Now tempted to create Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream. You're right, it's actually quite uncontentious. But I susepect that's the sort of headline that sets some ediotrs' nerves a-jangling, especially those with longer nails. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Iterated and reiterated. I think it's the fact that they buy into the idea that everybody noteworthy is a "celebrity" and is fair game for them to make up "gossip" about that offends many of us, Collect. There are better sources out there and we should always be using them. --John (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- No source that I know of is actually good for celebrity gossip as I have iterated. The article you link to, in the actual article, states simply: "In a recent post on her app, the reality star revealed her secret for keeping her ever-changing nails strong and healthy: Barielle Nail Strengthening Cream, a product that was originally formulated to repair the hooves of million-dollar thoroughbred racehorses." Which, as far as "celebrity gossip" goes, is extraordinarily non-contentious. The general claim about that cream has even been in The New York Times [8] and thus I fail to see why the DM is different in the case at hand from that esteemed journal. "Well‐Touled Cream They say that the late Elizabeth Arden used to work ‐her eyelash cream into her racehorses’ manes and tails to make them more luxuriant. Now we have a horse and cream story in reverse. It seems that stable grooms used to massage a cream into thoroughbreds’ hooves to keep them from splitting. After a while, women grooms began noticing an ,improvement in their own fingernails, which they attributed to the frequent use of the ungent. So, naturally, someone came along and decided to refine the preparation and package it for humans. Now we have Barielle Nail Strengthener Cream, a pleasant‐feeling concoction which seems to be improving our ragged cuticles. Saks carries it, at $6 and $10." Note that the typos are courtesy of that esteemed journal as well. Collect (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Suggested reading
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Well, not naming names, but I just saw where an administrator gave a short block to a productive editor (and in this case for a trivial offense, or really not even an offense at all) and the productive editor responded by leaving the project for good.
Just a gentle reminder to please go easy with this stuff, people. If I may recommend WP:HURTS as something all admins might want to glance at? Herostratus (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is disingenuous to refer to a situation without providing any context. User talk:EncMstr#Well that was ham-fisted. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't want to call out that admin or any admin. We all make mistakes (God knows I've made many), and I spoke to him about it privately. My intent is to use the event to take the opportunity to give us all pause to reflect, not to call out any individual. Herostratus (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think the essay is rather good, and should be required reading, not just suggested reading. MPS1992 (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't find its definition of a "real world' where most people (or many people at least) have never been in any sort of conflict in their "real" lives, ever, to be particularly compelling. My life has, on the whole, been pretty great and yet almost all the stuff on the list of things that apparently don't happen to most people have happened to me at some point. It's called living. It isn't always easy but it's worth doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- While I do disagree witht he logged reason for the block, I would also note that this user edited for eight years without ever speaking to any user about anything. Zero edits to talk, user talk, or Wikipedia namespaces. This is a collaborative project, refusing to communicate hinders collaboration. The idea that they were unaware they had a talk page is ludicrous, we've always had the orange bar, and in fact it was substatially larger and more obnoxious when this user started out. Edit summaries may not be required, but being accountable for your edits and responding to concerns is. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Did the user fail to acknowledge or respond to important warnings on his own talk page? Because (otherwise) there is actually no Wikipedia rule or policy that an editor has to discuss with other editors -- although I have seen a block given to a disruptive and heedless (but not strictly policy-violating) editor who had ignored dozens of talk-page notices/warnings over several years. That particular block was given to force them to reply, and was enacted from a consensus at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Again, I do not agree with the stated and logged reason for the block, and I would add that if I were considering blocking them for a problematic failure to communicate, I would say so and give them a chance to respond first. That being said, I do believe refusing to communicate is a real problem and at a certain point is grounds for a block. Eight years of unresponsiveness is a real issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Did the user fail to acknowledge or respond to important warnings on his own talk page? Because (otherwise) there is actually no Wikipedia rule or policy that an editor has to discuss with other editors -- although I have seen a block given to a disruptive and heedless (but not strictly policy-violating) editor who had ignored dozens of talk-page notices/warnings over several years. That particular block was given to force them to reply, and was enacted from a consensus at ANI. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is one of the perennial dilemmas of restricting anything - will the bad edits that were prevented outweigh the good edits that weren't done? I don't think one can boil this down to one essay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- That is a pickle, and I don't believe the cited essay does anything to resolve it. This is the basic conflict of all admin work, will the harm of preventing something (through blocking, deletion, page protection, etc) be greater than the benefit? Who can say? I would argue that a discussion of this specifc block, with the admin who made it, would be more worthwhile than plugging an essay that was just moved into project space and has yet to be subject to serious review by the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Some edit summaries I see from veteran users and administrators alike are not helpful or explain virtually nothing to most people. Would it have made a difference if Cliff1911 suddenly put "fixed" as the edit summary of an edit? Not specific enough still? If they repeatedly make a controversial edit, without explanation, there's some ground to stand on about non-communication. That's not what happened here though. Cliff only made one edit to a single article that EncMstr disagreed with and was blocked, by EncMstr, for it. He proceeded to log off for good after that. With that kind of explanation for making a non-controversial cleanup, I don't blame Cliff for not talking to anybody here. I certainly wouldn't. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 08:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, if that is the editor in question, blatantly ignoring years and hundreds of talk-page notices and then getting blocked for something related to at least half a dozen of those notices (not leaving an edit summary, especially when deleting text), does point up the fact that like any community, Wikipedia has certain community norms, and if you violate those norms for years on end consequences will happen. Not a great block rationale, but not the worst block in the world. And yeah, Herostratus, that's a nice essay, but the fact that you just put it live and then posted it here seems a tiny bit like advertising. Also, the editor did not put up any kind of "retired" notice, he just hasn't edited since the block (which, although it was for 72 hours, listed no timeframe visible on the talkpage). Seems like a bit of a CIR issue. Also, for all we know he merely created a new account. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The problem there is that the user in question, Cliff, was actually following the typical manual of style of film articles by removing content that shouldn't have been (and still is) there. EncMstr is an administrator. Not only should they be well aware of policies and guidelines of the articles they are editing, but they certainly shouldn't be restoring questionable content and then blocking him. Should Cliff been more responsive to users asking questions? Yes, assuming Cliff was aware there was project/talk spaces to edit and not blissfully ignoring them. Should they have been blocked for making a good edit? No. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- There had already been four ANI threads about him (which he was notified of): [9], [10], [11], [12]. He was going to get a CIR block one way or another. As it happened, the block was pretty short. He could have easily made an unblock request or come back in three or more days and resumed editing. He chose not to. Speaking for myself, I don't have much patience for WP:CIR issues that have lasted more than five years. Softlavender (talk) 11:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The problem there is that the user in question, Cliff, was actually following the typical manual of style of film articles by removing content that shouldn't have been (and still is) there. EncMstr is an administrator. Not only should they be well aware of policies and guidelines of the articles they are editing, but they certainly shouldn't be restoring questionable content and then blocking him. Should Cliff been more responsive to users asking questions? Yes, assuming Cliff was aware there was project/talk spaces to edit and not blissfully ignoring them. Should they have been blocked for making a good edit? No. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well, if that is the editor in question, blatantly ignoring years and hundreds of talk-page notices and then getting blocked for something related to at least half a dozen of those notices (not leaving an edit summary, especially when deleting text), does point up the fact that like any community, Wikipedia has certain community norms, and if you violate those norms for years on end consequences will happen. Not a great block rationale, but not the worst block in the world. And yeah, Herostratus, that's a nice essay, but the fact that you just put it live and then posted it here seems a tiny bit like advertising. Also, the editor did not put up any kind of "retired" notice, he just hasn't edited since the block (which, although it was for 72 hours, listed no timeframe visible on the talkpage). Seems like a bit of a CIR issue. Also, for all we know he merely created a new account. Softlavender (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Communication is required at multiple levels. Not leaving edit summaries is one thing, annoying but not actually prohibited. Not responding to people who try and talk to you directly (because you have not left an appropriate edit summary) is entirely different. There is zero evidence over a number of years they have any wish to actually talk to anyone. So frankly expecting an admin to jump through hoops that have previously been ignored is a waste of everyone's time. See point 4 of WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think this conversation is turning out the way the OP intended. I'm relieved to see that I am not the only one who thinks this block was just badly explained but probably justified and necessary. This is hardly new, I've seen dozens of cases of users that manage to avoid consequences for their problematic editng by just ignoring others' concerns and trying to "fly under the radar." It's actually a very effective strategy and something we should be more aware of and proactive toward. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's not necessarily turning out the way I'd hoped, and yes, you Beeblebrox disappoint me. The fact is that this user was discussed several times, always with the consensus of the admin corps (or, at any rate, the people who comment at ANI which is mostly admins I assume) being "Whatever his pecadillos, he is clearly a net positive asset to the project, so leave him alone". Taking the attitude "to hell with what the admin corps thinks, I am smarter than the admin corps and know what's best, so buh-bye" is a disappointing attitude, yes. I'm not saying the person who blocked him takes this attitude -- maybe he was unaware of the editor's history, maybe he just lost his head for a moment -- but you Beeblebrox are taking that attitude, as a considered position. That's disappointing, yes.
- The main point I'm trying to make is some number of blocks are going to turn out to be de facto permanent bans, regardless of how short and trivial you consider them to be, because the person is going to be offended enough to leave, so be careful", with this particular incident as an example. Whether an individual wants to consider and ponder that fact or not is up to them, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed a single block can drive away some users over the perceived injustice. I have myself caused the departure of a possibly useful contributor (see [13]), and another block of an editor with 20000 edits but lack of competence (and insufficient English skills to discuss this), Sheynhertz-Unbayg, turned into a ban and an insane number of sockpuppets. It is often very hard to predict how blocks will turn out. Editors whose work may be of benefit for Wikipedia if cleaned up properly or if somebody goes and checks them all are not as much of an asset as they may appear to be. Still, thinking about the person on the other end before pushing the block button is usually a Good Idea. —Kusma (t·c) 20:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
This seems quite topical given I've been requested to try and manage yet another block of Cassianto (talk · contribs). I don't really want to get in to an in-depth discussion about who said what to who and where, suffice I am certain this block will cause more disruption than it prevents. I have previously written something similar into the new admin's guide to try and ram the point home.
The closest I have come to being blocked is when I went through a brief spell of using an IP to edit in my local library (I now bring my laptop in and have 2FA enabled, so I'm less worried about the security aspects). I had a bunch of books on a desk, and was about to start putting the {{cite book}}
templates in the relevant articles, when I noticed the block message, which I'd never seen before. My reaction was "WTF?" and I fired off an unblock request, which was declined. That was an eye-opener and a half. Even though I knew exactly why the block took place (vandalism from somebody else in an earlier session), I was thoroughly brassed off that I couldn't improve the encyclopedia. I put the books back, stormed off in a huff, and basically wrote off an afternoon's editing. If that didn't drill into me how blocking has to be a serious last resort when absolutely nothing else will work, nothing would.
As far as Cliff1911 goes, I am sure I have defended him on ANI before as being harmless; the only problem is it would have been nice for him to just say "hello". AFAIK there was the odd minor violation of BLPSOURCES, which under normal circumstances would justify at most a revert, and possibly a friendly pointer towards policy if there were too many instances of it. I think if we could have found any non-wiki way of communicating with him, somebody would have done it. I'd quite like to know what he said. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: @Kusma: @Beeblebrox: @Only in death: @Softlavender: @MPS1992: @Salvidrim: @Jo-Jo Eumerus: @Moe Epsilon: @Herostratus:
- Wow! Sorry for the unresponsiveness. I was in the wilderness and then had trouble returning because of a winter storm.
- I see I may have Ham-fisted a block over three months ago. While I make mistakes from time to time—and initially thought I was having a bad day—upon review of the history, I stand behind that block.
- The user was asked at least six times to provide edit summaries. The third time (September 2011), a possible block was warned over the issue. I can kind of see why Herostratus says there were no escalating levels of warning because there doesn't seem to be a suggested course of formal warning escalation for the minor offense (not a wiki-law, but a social collaborative offense) of not providing an edit summary. But never ever ever ever providing an edit summary 53,510 times seems deserving of some reaction. Especially if talk page warnings don't show any change in behavior. The 72 hour block was intended as an impossible-to-ignore attention getting effort. I had anticipated the editor would immediately request an unblock, provide some insight about his behavior, be unblocked, and get right back to work.
- Alas, that user has not edited since then, which is unfortunate. I sure wish he would continue. Perhaps my doing nothing (not blocking) would have enabled the editor to provide a net positive. But what about the many (how many?) editors who review edits who have to work harder because there is no edit summary? It is hard to weight the pros and cons when not able to find out how much work is caused.
- Perhaps the first section title of WP:EDITSUMMARY (Always provide an edit summary) should be reworded to suggest summaries are optional since the rest of that section doesn't seem to match. Or does it? Maybe it should say that leaving an occasional edit summary blank is probably okay but never providing one is "bad", especially when never using any other means to collaborate. —EncMstr (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you are blocking solely on the basis that edit summaries were not provided, you seem to be misunderstanding current policy which does not dictate that edit-summary-less edits are in violation of policy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Problem faced due to sharing of the same IP address
Hello, I was blocked for a day on wikipedia. The reason was stated that I share the same IP address with another account.I would want to find a long-lasting solution to this issue. I happen to be in a building with a shared network and a lot of people use the common internet that is provided. Evidently many of them would be using Wiki from the same IP and I would be facing the same problem in regular intervals. I would request someone to help me and give me a permanent solution to this blockage. I have uploaded this previously too but have not heard a response from anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella.black678 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- We do have the technical ability to do this, see Wikipedia:IP block exemption. However, I'm not sure you qualify. If you ever find an issue at any time, you can request to have the autoblock removed while within your account. If such requests get acepted often, that would tend to be a clear sign of needing an IPBE. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- You could also request that the IP block be changed to non-logged-in users only, but we would need the address. — xaosflux Talk 13:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Retire account
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an admin remove the rights from AvicAWB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), remove it from the the checkpage, and block it for me? I'd appreciate it. Avicennasis @ 05:23, 19 Tevet 5777 / 05:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Please restore full version of this image
It is likely public domain and eligible for a move to commons: File:Pilsudski wilno polish-lithuanian interwar relations.jpg. The rationale for this is based on commons:User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright, namely that "works by presumably Polish anonymous artists published in Poland before 1946" (this image is from 1935) are PD. Granted, there is an illegible signature that nobody was able to properly decipher, but illegible signature are logically no better than anonymous and should be treated as such, and for that rationale see for example this Oxford catalogue of works, were works with illegible signatures that can be only partially deciphered and couldn't be traced back to a proper person are categorized under anonymous: Roger White; Robin Darwall-Smith (2001). The Architectural Drawings of Magdalen College, Oxford: A Catalogue. Oxford University Press. pp. 147–. ISBN 978-0-19-924866-7.. If anyone can find a better legal precedent/explanation about such signatures, do let me know, but if not, I repeat: this is an anonymous work, and should be treated as public domain until a moment someone can decipher the signature. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced a signed work becomes legally an "anonymous" publication just because you or I can't read the signature any more. Ignorance of authorship is not the same as lack of authorship. To me this signature looks pretty distinctive and to a contemporary reader who knew what cartoonists were active in the field, it would clearly have signalled: "this work is by me, cartoonist so-and-so". Have you researched the archives of the publication in question to see who their cartoonists were? In any case, you should have provided the actual source; it's from here: [14]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- BTW, you can find other cartoons by the same author in other volumes of the same paper, where the signature looks more readable, like here [15]. It looks like "St Rydygier" to me (which would seem to be a plausible name in Polish, right?). This [16] Google books search points to something (in Polish) that might suggest there was one "Stanislaw Rydygier" working for Mucha in the 1930s. Can you verify this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- (Here [17] is a small copy of another cartoon with what looks like the same signature explicitly credited to "S. Rydygier". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC))
- BTW, you can find other cartoons by the same author in other volumes of the same paper, where the signature looks more readable, like here [15]. It looks like "St Rydygier" to me (which would seem to be a plausible name in Polish, right?). This [16] Google books search points to something (in Polish) that might suggest there was one "Stanislaw Rydygier" working for Mucha in the 1930s. Can you verify this? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- User:Future Perfect at Sunrise: Wonderful job finding the author! How did you find the source for the image? I must have uploaded it long ago when I wasn't that well-versed in citing sources properly, so thank you for fixing my mess!
- User:Odysseus1479: Are you sure about that URAA interpretation? Have you checked commons:User:Piotrus/PolishCopyright? I am pretty sure works by Polish artists who died 70 years ago are PD. PS. In case of pma 1943, this would have entered PD in Poland in 1994, and would be still PD by 1996, so it should not be copyrighted in the USA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Finding the source was surprisingly easy: just type the words of the caption into Google and it finds you that digitalized archive at uw.edu.pl [19] From there I just had to randomly browse into some of the neighboring volumes to find more from the same author. Maybe you should write an article on that magazine, Mucha, by the way. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: I guess I was thrown off by the mention of 70 ypma above; if the applicable term is actually 50 years (according to the law in effect at the time) then yes, the Polish copyright expired before 1996 so was not extended by the US under URAA.—Odysseus1479 22:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Future Perfect at Sunrise: The least I can do considering you identified it so nicely: Mucha (magazine), based on the Polish stub article.
- @Odysseus1479: Ok, so you'd support restoring the full version of the image and moving it to Commons? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: I would not object, assuming the description & licence are updated. Although the dating for the artist would ideally be more solid, it’s plausible enough for me, given that I believe the PCP should be combined with a ‘balance of probability’ approach to provenance (as opposed to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’). However, on technical grounds I would rather see a fresh upload in PNG format. The image at the cited source appears to be some 30% larger in pixel dimensions than the “full version”, and despite not being able to see the latter I’ll bet that it suffered somewhat from being JPEG’d. I’d be happy to prep the image (crop, straighten, & convert to monochrome) and either send it to you or upload it myself.—Odysseus1479 20:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Odysseus1479: In that case, since you seem to have already located a better souce, could you upload it to Commons? Than we can tag this one with {{NowCommons}} and/or delete it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: nope—same source as linked above, but possibly a more effective method of capturing the available data. Anyway, there’s now a version of the picture at File:Pilsudski wilno polish-lithuanian interwar relations.png. Please check the licensing: because I don’t know what template to use for the Polish side (PD-50 having been deleted for some reason), I just added a note to the “Permission” section as rationale for the US template. I also took the liberty of editing the description a bit and adding a few categories.—Odysseus1479 23:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Odysseus1479: In that case, since you seem to have already located a better souce, could you upload it to Commons? Than we can tag this one with {{NowCommons}} and/or delete it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: I would not object, assuming the description & licence are updated. Although the dating for the artist would ideally be more solid, it’s plausible enough for me, given that I believe the PCP should be combined with a ‘balance of probability’ approach to provenance (as opposed to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’). However, on technical grounds I would rather see a fresh upload in PNG format. The image at the cited source appears to be some 30% larger in pixel dimensions than the “full version”, and despite not being able to see the latter I’ll bet that it suffered somewhat from being JPEG’d. I’d be happy to prep the image (crop, straighten, & convert to monochrome) and either send it to you or upload it myself.—Odysseus1479 20:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Couple admins needed
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could we get a couple admins to help block some vandals? On Huggle it currently has a massive 17.5 RPM right now. Thanks! Yoshi24517Chat Online 19:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- WP:AIV seems pretty empty right now, so these reports would need to be made if indeed there is a number of edits committing repeated vandalism. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Very sorry, but this is a grammatical bête noire for me: "A couple of admins" and not "a couple admins." Confer The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, p.87, "couple": "Used colloquiallly, to mean a handful or a few, couple should always be followed by of (a couple of pomegranates never a couple pomegranates)" In fact, to this New Yorker's ear "a couple pomegranates" sounds as if it's coming from a person who came to English from another language, especially from Yiddish. I wouldn't complain, but I see this misusage from students frequently, and it seems to be sidling its way into the language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: Was...was that 'really necessary? This was a request for admin assistance, not an English class. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Very sorry, but this is a grammatical bête noire for me: "A couple of admins" and not "a couple admins." Confer The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, p.87, "couple": "Used colloquiallly, to mean a handful or a few, couple should always be followed by of (a couple of pomegranates never a couple pomegranates)" In fact, to this New Yorker's ear "a couple pomegranates" sounds as if it's coming from a person who came to English from another language, especially from Yiddish. I wouldn't complain, but I see this misusage from students frequently, and it seems to be sidling its way into the language. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting activity from a new user
Just saw User:Jxu_certona/sandbox this during page patrols. The actual text says they're testing the api without logging in This user was just created today so it's rather interesting that they already know about the API and are testing it. Second , they have more than one sub page with the same text on it. Although I'd like to AGF on this user, I would have difficulty thinking of a reason why a new user would know and want to test the API's write ability (per their description ) without logging in except to create mischief. Perhaps some admin eyes would be good on this user . KoshVorlon} 19:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe they are an external developper/programmer/contractor who has not edited Wikipedia before but had a good reason for testing APIs (Wikipedia's or otherwise); "new Wikipedia user" doesn't "new Internet user". ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nothing actionable yet. ~ Rob13Talk 13:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_Telugu_movies- A Aa USA collection Modification
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
A Aa movie USA collection was set as wrong, please make the correction as per the same source which is mentioned presently.
Just for your information to provide correct information for public.
Thanks Rafi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafishaik1379 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Rafishaik1379: This is the Administrators Noticeboard for the English Wikipedia, but that article is on the Simple English Wikipedia. If you want to suggest a change to that article you can do so at its talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Think this deserves a block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I saw | this and reverted it I realize this is an IP editor, but it's not their first edit, the edit summary shows intent and the entry itself is a BDP/BLP ( he still has relatives and parents still alive). I'd suggest a block for this editor. KoshVorlon} 16:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Can just be blocked under Vandalism surely? (Its not technically a BDP due to dying in 1990. The part of BDP "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends" is dependant on the time past their death - and 17 years is way past the reasonable limit for that) Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually he has a sister, who's very much alive, so BDP would still apply. I realize we can't block just based on feelings alone, however, to me, that act of vandalism was no different than if they'd vandalized a black man's entry with the "N" word. KoshVorlon} 17:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- There were two IPs doing it. I've blocked both for 31 hours and I've rev-deleted the offensive content. I'll protect if I see it continue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Page mover user right conduct issue
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am requesting a review of Bradv's conduct using the page mover right. I believe that he has abused the privilege, by making a round-robin move in which the creation a redirect was suppressed, to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. This is explicitly prohibited by policy as explained at WP:Page mover#Page move disputes and WP:Page mover#Criteria for revocation.
Further context in this discussion: User talk:Bradv#Page move and possible abuse of user right
The sequence of event are as follows:
- The original article title was Donald Trump Russia dossier
- Four days later, an editor moved the title to Donald Trump-Russia dossier without discussion or consensus
- A discussion occurred in which the use of an en-dash had virtually no support, including from the person who moved it.
- A new move request was started, unrelated to the change from Donald Trump Russia dossier to Donald Trump-Russia dossier.
- Today, I reverted the page title back to the original Donald Trump Russia dossier
- Bradv reverted the page title back to Donald Trump-Russia dossier using his page mover right to suppress a redirect for a round-robin move.
I'm not that concerned about the title, and perhaps I should have blindly obeyed the article template that says don't move the page. What I am concerned about is Bradv's use of the page mover right in a content dispute, and his unwillingness to understand why that was wrong.- MrX 19:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is an active requested move discussion on this page. MrX moved the page after the discussion started, which invalidated all of the oppose votes, including my own, and rendered the entire discussion moot. Several editors had already voted in favour of the current title—MrX had already voted to move the page.
- This was obvious case of an inappropriate move, and it needed to be fixed. I will concede that I could have waited for an uninvolved editor or administrator to move it back, but at the time I didn't think it would be contentious and I didn't see the need to bother anyone. I also left a very civil edit summary, asking MrX to wait for the discussion to conclude.
- It should also be noted that I did not need to use the 'suppress redirects' flag here—as there was only one revision in the history it would have been trivial to move it normally. Furthermore, MrX also has the page mover right, so he should know better than to move pages while they are under discussion. (Also, he neglected to move subpages, so that needed to be fixed anyway.)
- I have been asked to revert my move, but if I did that it would cause further disruption to the requested move discussion. My suggestion to MrX was to wait until the discussion concludes. Bradv 19:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- The log says: "16:40, January 18, 2017 Bradv (talk | contribs) moved page Donald Trump–Russia dossier to Draft:Move/Donald Trump Russia dossier without leaving a redirect (Round-robin history swap step 1 using pageswap)"
- (edit conflict) Yes, but as I said, I did not need to use that right. The fact that I chose to use the PageSwap.js feature rather than moving it manually was merely a matter of convenience. Bradv 19:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't understand, you moved a page in middle of a discussion and when reverted you complain? Something is not computing. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- A page move war over a dash. Sigh. And again with the pounding of the revert buttons. My recommendation is that people not move pages during the ongoing move discussion, period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- And if they do, what's the recommended course of action? The alternative was to close the discussion, or notify everyone that opposed the move so they could change their vote. What should I have done? Bradv 19:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- It probably would have been best to leave it; at most, make a note of it in the discussion and then carry on discussing. There was no desperate need for it to be fixed, it would have been fixed eventually. Consensus resulting from the discussion would override a bold and undiscussed move that occurred while the discussion was ongoing, and a discussion about what the proper title for this article is should be able to reach a logical conclusion no matter what the current title is. Moving a page that's in the middle of a move discussion is a pretty disruptive thing to do, whether MrX meant for it to be or not, but move-warring is far more disruptive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Think the consensus is that everyone thinks it should be named something different. Probably best for all sides to avoid renaming it back or forth until at least two people agree on what to call it. I'd prefer (Donald Trump)-Russia dossier, but it shouldn't be moved there until everyone agrees. Κσυπ Cyp 22:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- When I moved the page, I was aware of what I thought was an informal discussion of a title change (which turns out to have been proposed by a sock). Had I realized that it had become a formal RM, I would not have moved the page. I think the various points that have been made here have been received, so this can be closed as far as I'm concerned. - MrX 00:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I observe (and including the willfully disobedient gallery) that if we follow your plan (No action taken while an active discussion is hapening) this gives anybody who opposes a change the battleground playbook to tendentiously prevent a change. Don't like a change, get a friend to oppose and force a consensus discussion, shortly before the discussion closes, you force a new consensus discussion on a slightly varried theme that is predicated on the first consensus discussion being resolved that the change be accepted. It would have been better to forcibly fold the second proposal (hyphen vs endash wars again?) into the first and establish a unified consensus. Also it would have been good to have a moratorium on "calling the question" for a few weeks so new arguments/proposals have time to mature under the established principle of "Consensus can change". Hasteur (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- And if they do, what's the recommended course of action? The alternative was to close the discussion, or notify everyone that opposed the move so they could change their vote. What should I have done? Bradv 19:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Or you forcibly revert ad nauseam, as is today's playbook for obstructionism. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Removing block notices
I always thought that there was a proscription against removing block notices while blocked, but I can't find anything in guidelines. Is that true, and if so, where is it? SpinningSpark 15:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLANKING: "A number of important matters may not be removed by the user—they are part of the wider community's processes: Declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block." So the block notice itself can be removed (as it'll still appear in the block log), but if there is a denied unblock notice, that cannot be removed. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- ...until or unless the block expires or is lifted. :) --64.85.216.175 (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson and RfA - Topic ban proposal
Over the years that Andrew Davidson has been voting at RfA I think he has shown himself to be one of the most disruptive and disagreed with RfA voters. He has been described as having an “ongoing crusade”, casting votes that are “observationally equivalent to trolling”, and “making lazy assumptions that are not supported by hard evidence”. He is regarded as the “persistent ‘oppose everyone’ participant”, who makes “token opposes with whatever rationale he could find”, with one such vote described by a user as “the most useless and off-base oppose” they had ever seen. According to Snottywong’s tool Andrew has voted on 74 RfAs, matching the final outcome 50% of the time. Of those 74 votes: 53 (72%) were oppose, 15 were support, and 1 was neutral. More recently, Andrew has matched the request outcome closer to 30% of the time.
I looked at Andrew’s most recent votes and found the following, which I have attempted to summarise without injecting my own opinion:
Extended content
|
---|
|
My personal thoughts on Andrew’s voting history are that even when he places an oppose vote that isn’t completely ridiculous, it’s rarely indicative that the candidate shouldn't be trusted with administrator rights, and such votes are far outweighed by the ones that cause other editors to spend time and effort arguing with him. Other highlights include implying that not using your real name or disclosing your gender is a reason not to be an admin, by the way. If many of Andrew's votes were made by new users they would be reverted on sight as outright trolling.
This isn’t to say that every vote Andrew makes at RfA is a bad one - he has made plenty of sensible votes over the years - but I believe that his participation in this process, especially recently, is absolutely a net negative, draining the time, effort, and goodwill of the users who argue with him, and contributing heavily to the atmosphere that drives users away from RfA. I therefore propose that Andrew be topic banned from voting at RfA. Sam Walton (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support- yes, I've long been of the opinion that this guy's votes are subtle, pompous trolling. Opposing people for such crimes as being a fan of Hunter S. Thompson, or editing articles on topics that don't interest Andrew Davidson, or not being a native English speaker, are utterly ridiculous. Reyk YO! 19:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment this opening statement is completely unsupported by any comparative evidence. "Over the years that Andrew Davidson has been voting at RfA he has shown himself to be the single most disruptive and disagreed with RfA voter." It is POV at best and is a non-neutral, lead to a very important subject - banning someone from an area. It required Arbcom sanctions the last time such a Tban was proposed - and it was a partial one at that. I can think of several more notable contributors - names that will be far more familiar to those with half decent memories. Sanctions have to be based on more than POV and guesswork. Leaky Caldron 19:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you disagree with that sentence, then please ignore it and read the rest of the post instead. I've reworded to be less objective at any rate. Sam Walton (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose My !votes are all in good faith. I look at the candidate's user page and edits and then !vote based upon what I see. Sometimes I oppose and sometimes I support. Here's a good example. Andrew D. (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm torn. One one hand, it's depressing to see people saying, essentially, "Help! We are completely incapable of ignoring someone who clearly spouts nonsense, and are forced against our will to argue incessantly with the one vote out of 179 that we disagree with! Protect us from ourselves!" My gut warns me that this is kind of the thin end of the wedge, and it won't be long before other people use this precedent to start targeting people who use more defensible, but not mainstream, rationales. I still remember how out-of-proportion angry people got with Kurt's silly but relatively harmless "self noms = de facto power hungry" opposes (I'm not linking user name solely to make the young pups do research if they're curious, so please don't link it anywhere. Make them work for it!). Seems like it would be easier to create Template:Don't bother arguing with AD, no Crat is going to pay attention to this vote, and the first person to see another silly oppose can slap it on the page.
- On the other hand, AD's RFA opposes are really, really obnoxious about 75-90% of the time, and as someone (Brad?) said, often functionally indistinguishable from trolling. There comes a time when you just have to say "Come on, man." Or at the very least, when you just have to say "I don't really want to spend political capital defending this silliness".
- So, borderline oppose, but I will lose precisely 1.34 minutes of sleep over this if consensus doesn't go my way. But I reserve the right to oppose much more vigorously if RFA bans start to become a thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Andrew opposed my RFA, and I respect his reasoning for it. I don't see his opposes as "trolling", but of a mind as to what he believes to be needed for an admin. That being said, I have to agree with Floquenbeam, his opposes can be very irritating, and generate enough unneeded drama during an RFA. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Andrew/Colonel can be incredibly annoying, but if I were compiling a list of the most obnoxious "regulars" at RFA he wouldn't even make my top ten (and most of that list would probably actually come from the serial supporters who regularly descend on anyone daring to raise an objection to a candidate). I really don't like this recent trend of declaring people personae non grata from various Wikipedia processes—either someone is problematic enough that they warrant some kind of sanction, or they're not. Either find enough evidence of misconduct to ban him from Wikipedia, or leave him alone—the RFA participants aren't such delicate flowers that they need to be protected from anyone faintly critical, no matter how silly the criticism. ‑ Iridescent 20:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose this vindictive attempt to silence opposition. Mr Davison always does his research on candidates. Sometimes his opposes are for reasons that I consider strong; sometimes they are for reasons that I consider quixotic if not idiotic. But they are always well-researched, and that sets Mr Davidson out from the crowd. So what if he is often in a minority of one or two. Live with it. Welcome the diversity and obvious love for wikipedia that he brings. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I respect the nominator, but, his examples don't show anything near the functional equivalent of trolling.About the only one I saw that I would have chided him on (if I held the mop) was NinjaRobotPirate's AFD. That was a patently ridiculous rationale and he did get promptly shot down for it on the discussion page. Further, there are others who have agreed with his reasons on the AFD's. I don't see a reason to TBan him for this. KoshVorlon} 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. Stupid votes can be ignored, and frankly the scheduled events of tomorrow raise my tolerance for all forms of dissent to an all time high. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose per Guy and Martin Niemöller. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak oppose while it's tempting to support this, it's better to allow the Colonel to continue to make his unique contributions to the RFA process. They make no difference whatsoever to the actual outcome, especially more recently. They do, however, tend to create a considerable amount of heat without creating light, and lend to a more hostile atmosphere. So, it'd be better for people to ignore these edits if they find them irritating and meaningless, rather than get worked up and seek a topic ban. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Completely per several of the above and many of the following. I have read comments from some Admins “hinting” at some sort of “RFA deform ” to “deal with the likes of” AD. If this is it, it is a horse that will not run. Maybe a trial gallop? If so, an unimpressive one. If it was an RfA - WP:SNOW. Leaky Caldron 20:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- oppose I don't care for a lot of these opposes because I think they are poorly reasoned, and they remind me of some past editors who would always find some reason to oppose no matter how terrible. That being said, if you actually look at the RFAs linked above, in almost all cases the candidate was promoted, and when they weren't it ws not because of this users' stated reasons, so we can probably just ignore their comments at RFA instead of barring them from participating. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Andrew will know that I have/had a lot of issues with some of his editing in the past, but his RfA opposes have in the main been reasonably well researched (there's some that have been a bit flaky. OK, very flaky.). If you're going to ban someone for that, I can think of a lot more RfA regulars that ought to get the boot first. And the other thing is - it's one vote. I would hope our crats are perfectly able to distinguish good opposes from nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose although I don't always vote at RFA, I tend to follow them, and I cannot think of a case where an unjustified oppose vote from Andrew has caused a significant trend towards opposing. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though. While I understand the viewpoint that there is a culture of hostility at RFA, I don't see how topic-banning Andrew is going to have any positive impact outside of eliminating a bunch of back and forth policy discussion that has little, if any, impact on the RFA. ZettaComposer (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Personal (non-bureaucrat) opinion: It's probably best if people who are annoyed with Andrew's participation at RfA to view him as a form of 'official opposition'. Take it as likely that Andrew will oppose the candidate using the strongest reason they can find, and if that reason doesn't compel you to oppose or withhold support, you can rest assured in your support or non-opposition of the candidate. Except in a potential case where his oppose rationale is actually misleading (and thus should be challenged for the benefit of other participants), it can probably be left without reply. –xenotalk 20:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. His !votes are observationally equivalent to trolling. Opposing someone for operating a bot properly and within community standards? Ludicrous. ~ Rob13Talk 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - I will not be helping to set the precendent to evict dissent. This is a slippery slope and one which has already been trod upon a couple of times. The rule of law has always been thus at RfA; vote. That is the law. There are few rules that enforce any sort of "quality" upon the RfA process. Aside from the occasional sockpuppet vote few are struck and those that are, often end up being unstruck. I'm not so concerned with who the topic ban is being aimed at, as much as I am concerned that a topic ban on this subject is being suggested. For that matter, Andrew Davidson is not going to be topic banned from RfA. Yes, some of their votes are "shaking my head" worthy, but, then when I see "why not?" as a support rationale I shake my head just as vigorously as I do at even the worst of AD's votes. To quote another editor; "Well, why? would be a good start." Mr rnddude (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've disagreed with all of Andrew's RFA comments that I've seen recently. In fact, I think some of them are pretty daft and give the impression that his motivation is to find any possible reason to oppose, however lame. However, I don't see any incivility or personal attacks, and I really hate the idea of excluding people who don't fit in with an 'approved' mindset - wedges, thin edges, and all that, as someone said. If Andrew makes a silly-looking !vote, just ignore it! People replying and kicking off arguments about his !votes are as much a part of the problem - crats aren't stupid, and can be trusted to evaluate it properly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I oppose censoring RfA participants in this way. I disagree with almost all of Andrew D.'s opposes des jours but I don't think they are just trolling. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I recently discussed this with some other admins via email and I wrote : "The problem I've got is I can gather together a large number of RfAs where he opposed; but of those I don't think there are too many where nobody agreed with his opinion and it led to a screaming match. Yash's RfA was a good example, and had he passed I would have probably used that. But generally, I think the community pays little attention to his vote, and where more than 2-3 people do agree with it, it's probably something somebody else might have mentioned anyway." I was not against starting a discussion on ANI, but going straight for the topic ban was premature, I'm afraid. Full disclosure btw; Andrew supported my RfA Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Reyk and Rob. I find it very hard not to see a pattern of subtle trolling. NinjaRobotPirate and Cyberpower 2 are clear examples of "oppose for the most ridiculous reason just because I can". Before anybody says: "he opposed your RfA"—well, I pre-empted you. BethNaught (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. His opinions are not outside the boundaries of reasonableness, and he limits his participation, unlike some others whose signatures appeared a dozen or two times in my RfA, Andrew's only appeared once. Though I thought his grounds for opposing my RfA were weak, occasionally I see him opposing an RfA with a newly-mentioned rationale which has some good basis behind it. Anyone who would be intimidated from running because of Andrew's presence at RfA probably is too thin-skinned to be a good administrator anyway. wbm1058 (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. In a way, I find Andrew's ridiculous opposes to actually be useful. I know that he will bend over backwards to find a reason to oppose an RfA, so if the best he can come up with is, "not enough content creation", then I know the candidate will be a good administrator. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - Well I wrote a pretty long reply last time and ended up conflicting with the closer here so I'll keep it short this time - I disagree with Andrews !votes and IMHO it seems like they're simply trying to find a fault with anyone and everyone ... however they're entitled to their opinion and if they wanna oppose everyone then fine - He does research candidates and he does provide detailed answers (they're not one liners like "I think this candidate would be shit" etc etc), I mean no disrespect to Andrew but most of the RFA !voters tend to more or less ignore his !votes and I don't see why we shouldn't continue ignoring and I don't see why we should topicban someone for simply opposing no matter how irritating it may be. –Davey2010Talk 03:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support This user's opposes in RfA has been on my radar for some time. Some of them are so off topic or way off the mark (e.g. Cyberpower's RfA) that it's borderline disruptive to the RfA process. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. We are not in the habit of scrapping votes against someone's RfA because we don't like them or because they're wrong, except for in clear-cut cases of vandalism, disruption, etc. Doing this preemptively is even worse. I have disagreed often enough with Andrew Davidson (if we agreed in one out of a hundred interactions I'd be surprised, and we must have had hundreds), and this includes many of their RfA contributions--and whaddayaknow, earlier today I saw one of his comments, on a recent RfA, and thought he was right on the mark. Either way, no; any disruption caused by his votes is easily manageable (just let admins or crats remove stuff!), and you can always choose not to pay attention to his comments. Closing crats should be trusted to have enough sense to value things properly. No, leave him be. I welcome his critiques. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose as written. I might consider a lesser restriction (such as no replies to comments). --Rschen7754 03:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I generally think Andrew is a net negative at RfA, and pretty much ignore most of his comments, but I baulk at censoring RfA in this way, and am concerned, like others, that this is the thin edge of the wedge. 'Crats can ignore him as they should in most cases, but he does occasionally raise something useful. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose I always read Andrew's opposes and often disagree (but not always). They always appear to be made in good faith with some research behind them. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose Having recently woken up at 06:00 Japanese time to find an ANI discussion of whether I should be blocked for something I had done several days earlier having already proceeded quite a bit while I was asleep, I fully sympathize with the concern expressed by Kudpung in the message linked below. But the whole point of SNOW closes is that, regardless of whether people who live different time zones than the majority of contributors to English Wikipedia have had the chance to contribute, they are extemely unlikely to sway the closer's decision even if they can. This isn't like one of those AFDs that received universal opposition before someone realized the article was a COPYVIO (I would link it, but can't for the life of me remember which it was). Lots of similar discussions get closed in very short lengths of time, and I don't recall ever seeing an exact hour figure put on it in WP:CLOSE or any PAG. Yes, maybe a newly anointed admin shouldn't be making that decision, but it's not like CP678's RFA was one AD supported and CP678 was "returning the favour" by prematurely closing the TBAN discussion. I honestly can't see this discussion going anywhere. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Closure
Just to briefly note here that this thread was closed by Cyberpower678 as a WP:SNOW close. It was reopened after Kudpung left CP678 a message. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Time to remove Tristan noir's (interaction) ban?
Hey, I think it's time my IBAN against Tristan noir (talk · contribs) was removed. It's been over three years since he last violated it, and he hasn't edited at all in 11 months, so it's really just a formality at this point.
The ban was originally put in place in February 2013 (as a modification of an earlier two-way restriction from December 2012) and the wording was modified in April 2015. It is now logged at WP:RESTRICT.
As for why I'm bringing this up now, a recent remark on an unrelated ANI thread has convinced me that the fewer times my username appears on WP:RESTRICT, the better, as even one-way restrictions that were put in place to protect me from abuse can apparently be used against me years after they served any practical purpose.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Clarify Damn. Forgot to mention this. I am not proposing that the Tristan noir entry on RESTRICT be removed outright. It also includes a separate and largely unrelated TBAN. I'm neutral on whether that one remains, but only because he's inactive, and I wasn't the only one being hassled by the edits that led to the TBAN. The other users who supported the TBAN would need to be consulted. Pointing this out because several of the "support"s below are !voting based on my statement alone. This makes sense for a one-way IBAN, but BMK's original "oppose" rationale would make a lot more sense for a community sanction that doesn't affect only one user. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support due to a philosophical disagreement with interaction bans in general. ~ Rob13Talk 00:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Rob, you, of course, can support or oppose the proposal for any reason that makes sense to you, but I do have to point out the irony that you can make a comment like this here, a support for a specific proposition based on general principles, and no one bats an eyelash, but if I do the same thing on an RfA, oppose a candidate on the basis of general principles, I get messages telling me that my !vote is harmful to Wikipedia, or that I shouldn't base my !vote on general principles, only on the specifics connected with the nom. I wouldn't think of suggesting that the closer of this thread should put less weight on your comment because it's based on your personal philosophy, but people regularly suggest that Bureaucrats put less weight on my oppose (or even discount it altogether) because it's based on my personal criteria. I suppose that one could make the argument that RfAs are different from every other kind of discussion on Wikipedia, but, frankly, I ain't buying such a contention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: RfAs genuinely are different from other discussions because they have hard number cutoffs to them. The numbers matter far more than in actual discussions, which is why many editors attempt to persuade editors opposing for silly reasons. Having said that, I actually would expect my support to be discounted somewhat here. I recognize that my opinion is far disconnected from the community's here, and so I would expect it to be given less weight. That's proper for a closer to consider. I personally believe that interaction bans tend not to solve the root behavioral problems, are more of a pain to enforce than they're worth, and seriously damage the collaborative environment of the encyclopedia, but that's not (yet) the consensus view. ~ Rob13Talk 07:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- I understand your thinking, but the "hard cut-off" isn't really a hard cut-off per se, since all it does it say that within a certain range the 'crats are expected to treat the RfA in the same way any closer is expected to treat any other discussion. However, the 'crats aren't forbidden from denying the bit above that range if no legitimate policy-based reasons have been provided, just as any closer is expected to evaluate the comments per policy in any other discussion. That being said, I take your point that the hard-coded "disretionary range" does make RfAs a little different from other discussions, just as I hope you took my point that the hassling of oppose !votes in RfAs which are based on reasonable personal philosophy is antithetical to the general POV in other discussions that sees no problem with such comments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- I just don't see it as hassling. I see it as objecting to/challenging, just as you've done here, which is an important part of any discussion. As a closer, I find any bits of interactions between the two "sides" in a dispute to be most helpful in evaluating the discussion. When people stay in their respective "sections" and don't consider the viewpoints of others, it's very hard to gauge how discussion participants perceive strength of arguments. ~ Rob13Talk 21:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- But you and I have had a polite discussion. Believe me, that's not been the case on some RfAs. One really does get the impression from some people that the simple act of opposing an RfA is seen as disruptive. It's also clearly the case that support !votes do not get objected to or challenged the way opposing !votes do.Anyway, this is a sidebar to this IBan-removal discussion, one which we should probably end. I just wanted to point out what I saw as a bit of irony. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support. Ten edits in almost three years, and no edits in most of a year, means that we're not likely to see any interaction of any sort between the two of you, whether or not it's disruptive. Interaction bans can be useful, but nobody familiar with your (plural) history would call for one of them to be imposed on you (plural) right now, and if we shouldn't impose it, we shouldn't continue it. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Oppose- Bans and other sanctions are not generally removed simply because the editor is not currently editing, for the obvious reason that if the editor returns to editing, we would want them to do so under the same conditions until they could show the community that the sanctions are no longer necessary. Removing sanctions during a fallow period would also encourage people to edit under another ID or with IPs, waiting for the sanction under their previous ID to be removed. This request would create a bad precedent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- But we can always reimpose it — get blocked or banned for X, get the sanction removed, and go back to doing X, and the sanction is routinely restored with a "bonus". Removing sanctions during a fallow period might encourage that for a more short-term absence, but we're talking a nearly total absence from the project for just almost three years; most people who are gone for that long will never return to significant activity, and the likelihood that anyone else would say "I'll disappear for a similar long time in hopes of getting my ban revoked, and then come back" is miniscule. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- True enough. OK, Support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - If the individual protected by the one-way IBAN requests it to be lifted, then there should be no reason not to grant that request unless there is evidence of baiting, trolling, or other malfeasance. As Tristan noir has not made any edits in almost a year, I don't see how there is any malfeasance on the part of Hijiri88, nor do I foresee any interaction between the two. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 03:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - If the person protected by the IBAN wants it removed and the user isn't active, why not? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - it's a one way interaction ban intended to give Hijiri88 relief from being pestered. If Hijiri88 now feels it's doing them more harm than good, then it ought to be lifted. Reyk YO! 06:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support If the user who was causing the disruption asked for this in these circumstances I might feel differently, but since it's the user who was being protected by this restriction I can see no reason to oppose granting their request. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support — I don't really like the idea of permanent bans, and in this case the ban seems to be solely to protect someone who wants it revoked, so there's no reason remaining to keep it. And it doesn't look like anyone will be opposing, anyway. Κσυπ Cyp 09:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support - given the low editing of the other party this no longer seems necessary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Request to redirect Support number scam to Technical support scam
The former is a common name for the latter, but I cannot create it because it matches a blacklist entry, since (ironically enough), lots of spammers have been trying to insert technical support scams into various wikis with titles containing "support number".--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Done. Do you have evidence of that kind of disruption here, disruption that would warrant preëmptive protection of the redirect? Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: m:Title blacklist is where it's at; the entry
.*(help desk|support)(.?phone)?.?number.*
seems to be the one blocking it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)- No, that's not what I meant; sorry. Based on the vandalism that's caused this entry to appear in the title blacklist, do you believe that we're likely to see this kind of disruption at this specific redirect, now that it exists and can be edited, and if you believe that we're likely to, do you believe that it's likely enough that protection is needed off the bat? Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Probably not. Inserting spam on the page on the type of scam you're trying to pull off is a really good way to make folks fall for the scam.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, that's not what I meant; sorry. Based on the vandalism that's caused this entry to appear in the title blacklist, do you believe that we're likely to see this kind of disruption at this specific redirect, now that it exists and can be edited, and if you believe that we're likely to, do you believe that it's likely enough that protection is needed off the bat? Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: m:Title blacklist is where it's at; the entry
RFC close review at Talk:Silicon Alley#RfC: Should this article discuss the biotech industry
Formal challenge placed now. I request three senior closing editors to review the RfC closure specifically to look at the sources quoted toward the end of the discussion to adjudicate whether it is reasonable to include a small passage in the discussion (one or two properly sourced sentences) on biotech, specifically pointing out that several sources lump biotech into Silicon Alley albeit as a minority viewpoint. I believe that as many times as I quoted these sources in the discussion, they were not seen clearly until too late, after !votes had been cast, since I was specifically not allowed to post these refs in the text of the article pending the discussion, where in plain sight would have provided fair, reasonable, and proper adjudication by actual and potential !voters. Castncoot (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Moved from WP:ANRFC to here verbatim so that a review can begin. I am the closer of the RFC Tazerdadog (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think my closure was fine, but I welcome comments on it from anyone. The closure was discussed at my talk page before coming here. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- From what I can see the issue was given a fair and thorough hearing and need not be discussed further at this time. It's important to be able to realize that sometimes the community doesn't do what you think it should and you need to able to accept that. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse. Seems like most of the sources were presented before about half of the !votes came in, so the later !votes (which followed the same trend as the earlier ones) did have access to them. And what Beeblebrox said. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Endorse. Closing in line with the voting consensus. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- What do User:Only in death, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, and User:Beeblebrox think of the actual refs themselves, tough? Don't you think they merit at least passing mention of biotech in the article? Castncoot (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not the topic of this discussion. AN is not for re-litigating content issues. Please consider the possibility that you might be wrong and that the people who thought that they don't justify a mention were right. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- What Jo-jo said. The point of a closure challenge is to see if the closer correctly assessed the consensus. In my opinion they did. (My opinion on the refs is irrelevant to this). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that someone is "right" or "wrong" here, I am saying that there is a "reasonable" option which the closer declined based heavily upon, per his closing statement, the actual content of the sources themselves. But this exchange indicates that even he wasn't aware after going through the RfC that I had indeed brought these sources up repeatedly earlier in the discussion, simply because he (naturally) didn't notice them through the muck. So if he didn't notice these within much of the discussion even after close examination, I can reasonably infer that many others wouldn't have seen them at all until too late, if ever. Once people !vote, it takes heaven and earth to get them to revert their vote, and that's really not a fair expectation. Castncoot (talk)
- Not true. If there were reasonable sources presented that discuss the role of Biotech in silicon alley then I would support its inclusion. But the fact is the sources are weak. There were several discussions had on the talk page about sources. Polyamorph (talk) 04:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that someone is "right" or "wrong" here, I am saying that there is a "reasonable" option which the closer declined based heavily upon, per his closing statement, the actual content of the sources themselves. But this exchange indicates that even he wasn't aware after going through the RfC that I had indeed brought these sources up repeatedly earlier in the discussion, simply because he (naturally) didn't notice them through the muck. So if he didn't notice these within much of the discussion even after close examination, I can reasonably infer that many others wouldn't have seen them at all until too late, if ever. Once people !vote, it takes heaven and earth to get them to revert their vote, and that's really not a fair expectation. Castncoot (talk)
- Exactly. It didn't go your way. That doesn't mean the close was improperly done, and it's not the end of the world either way, it's just some words on a page. If you're going to get along well here you need to learn to let go of these things even when you just know you're right. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- This user is unfortunately continuing their disruption at Silicon Alley by edit warring (they want a link kept to Biotech in the See Also section) and have attempted to start a new RfC about said link. This is getting disruptive.Polyamorph (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, the See also section was specifically exempted from the scope of the RfC by the closer, whether you want to admit it or not. Castncoot (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- Put the stick down.Polyamorph (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- No, the See also section was specifically exempted from the scope of the RfC by the closer, whether you want to admit it or not. Castncoot (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- This user is unfortunately continuing their disruption at Silicon Alley by edit warring (they want a link kept to Biotech in the See Also section) and have attempted to start a new RfC about said link. This is getting disruptive.Polyamorph (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
- What do User:Only in death, User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, and User:Beeblebrox think of the actual refs themselves, tough? Don't you think they merit at least passing mention of biotech in the article? Castncoot (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I have made a slight amendment to my closing statement, reverting to my initial version. This hopefully renders the see also section moot. I apoligise for my error and the extra confusion it has caused. The change should be minor in the context of the entire close. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Duolingo has dropped its Immersion translation system; perhaps Wikipedia can get it; it's far better than machine translation
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know that there's been problems with Wikipedia's current translation system and the overuse of machine translation. Duolingo had the model of crowd-sourcing translations. I have often contributed to Duolingo translations from non-English Wikipedias and found that crowd-sourcing can lead to high quality translations. Perhaps Wikipedia can look into getting Duolingo's system. Lots of Duolingo users are upset about the loss of Duolingo's Immersion translation system. I think Wikipedia has an opportunity to step in and offer a crowd-sourcing translation system (either get Doulingo's or develop our own). This is also a win-win situation both for Wikipedia and the fans of Duolingo's Immersion tool who spend a lot of time translating articles for free. Duolingo's system was very general and went between any two languages they supported. This system had some features that encouraged people to think through their translation. --RJGray (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- That's an interesting proposal. I don't know anything about Duolingo and its system but since this idea should get more feedback I dropped a link at the Village Pump to get a broader audience. De728631 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- This isn't an "administrator" issue, suggest venue changing to the inbound link from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Translation_of_non-English_articles. — xaosflux Talk 20:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)