→Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television): new section |
Ncmvocalist (talk | contribs) →RFA - Administrator recall for User:Herostratus: nsk seems to have a flawed understanding |
||
Line 199: | Line 199: | ||
***:::I find it very worrying and offensive that a non-crat (and not even an admin) unilaterally reverted a crat closure. Nobody elected Ncmvocalist a crat, while Nihonjoe is a duly promoted crat. Closing RfAs ''is'' one of the main functions of crats. If a crat closure is to be reverted, it must be done by another crat, after a crat chat. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 12:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
***:::I find it very worrying and offensive that a non-crat (and not even an admin) unilaterally reverted a crat closure. Nobody elected Ncmvocalist a crat, while Nihonjoe is a duly promoted crat. Closing RfAs ''is'' one of the main functions of crats. If a crat closure is to be reverted, it must be done by another crat, after a crat chat. [[User:Nsk92|Nsk92]] ([[User talk:Nsk92|talk]]) 12:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
***::::I don't, to be honest. I'd have preferred it if there had been some public discussion first, but Nihonjoe's close appears to be contested by the community (I also believe the close was unwise), while Ncmvocalist's re-open seems to have met with broad support. I think it would have been wise to have left the re-opening to a 'crat, but the end result is the same. Unless there's some new super-secret 'crat reason for preventing [[WP:RECALL]] RfAs? [[User talk:TFOWR|<b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b>]] 12:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
***::::I don't, to be honest. I'd have preferred it if there had been some public discussion first, but Nihonjoe's close appears to be contested by the community (I also believe the close was unwise), while Ncmvocalist's re-open seems to have met with broad support. I think it would have been wise to have left the re-opening to a 'crat, but the end result is the same. Unless there's some new super-secret 'crat reason for preventing [[WP:RECALL]] RfAs? [[User talk:TFOWR|<b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b>]] 12:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
***::::We need to get our priorities straight here. Nsk92 appears to have a very flawed understanding as to what [[WP:IAR]] means, much like Nihonjoe, otherwise that user wouldn't be advancing arguments of this nature. Bureaucrats are not promoted (or for that matter, permitted) to rob users of their rights (which are afforded by [[Wikipedia:Admin#Administrator_recall|community policy]]), or, to misrepresent the letter and spirit of [[WP:DR|other policies and procedures]] to reflect personal interpretations that are not supported by a community consensus. This is regardless of if bureaucrats do so individually or as a group, in public or in secret, or in any other fashion. Nihonjoe inappropriately ignored all rules to unilaterally impose his personal versions (or wildly inaccurate interpretations) of policy/process on the community [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators_open_to_recall&diff=369855764&oldid=326531111] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators_open_to_recall&diff=369856517&oldid=369856430] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators_open_to_recall%2FSample_process&action=historysubmit&diff=369856035&oldid=322533835]. I restored policy that allows admins to voluntarily choose the terms of any recall process that they wish. As Nihonjoe's close was grossly and fundamentally problematic (and others expressed concerns to this effect), I also boldly reverted the inappropriate close thinking that [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy|Wikipedia is not an unnecessary bureaucracy where process wonkery rules all]]. I was especially mindful and considerate of the fact Herostratus, the subject of this RFA, explicitly did not want fellow administrators to needlessly interfere in the process - unlike Nihonjoe, I am not an administrator, which was in accordance with Herostratus' criteria also. Nevertheless, I fully explained the reasons for reverting the close [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANihonjoe&action=historysubmit&diff=369874769&oldid=369869171 here], and I stand by my rationale and actions in this matter. [[User:Ncmvocalist|Ncmvocalist]] ([[User talk:Ncmvocalist|talk]]) 13:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
***:: Didn't we used to call that [[WP:IAR]]? Closing during an entire process because of a personal interpretation as to what process to use (acting as if the current policies are in fact set in stone as opposed to being merely prescriptive) is really questionable judgment from an administrator, let along a bureaucrat. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 08:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
***:: Didn't we used to call that [[WP:IAR]]? Closing during an entire process because of a personal interpretation as to what process to use (acting as if the current policies are in fact set in stone as opposed to being merely prescriptive) is really questionable judgment from an administrator, let along a bureaucrat. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 08:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
***::{{xt|...someone, not to mention an '''administrator''', would...}} I think you mean "bureaucrat" ;-) I'm [[WP:AGF|assuming]] the closing 'crat simply hadn't encountered [[WP:RECALL]]. I agree that their close was inappropriate, and I agree with the re-opening by Ncmvocalist. Unless Nihonjoe has made a habit of doing this, however, I'd suggest there's nothing further to do here...? [[User talk:TFOWR|<b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b>]] 11:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
***::{{xt|...someone, not to mention an '''administrator''', would...}} I think you mean "bureaucrat" ;-) I'm [[WP:AGF|assuming]] the closing 'crat simply hadn't encountered [[WP:RECALL]]. I agree that their close was inappropriate, and I agree with the re-opening by Ncmvocalist. Unless Nihonjoe has made a habit of doing this, however, I'd suggest there's nothing further to do here...? [[User talk:TFOWR|<b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b>]] 11:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:58, 24 June 2010
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
|
Community ban on Swamilive
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Since the basis of a de facto ban (based on on the basis of this thread and this thread) has been contested, I am proposing a formal community ban on Swamilive. This user is a long time and persistent vandal as well as serial sockpuppeteer using many accounts as well as IPs to repeatedly vandalize Wikipedia. This has been going on for more than a year apparently.
Courtesy to David Biddulph and Pdfpdf who created the following list of more recent activities:
- Rear admiral
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rear_admiral&action=historysubmit&diff=364231941&oldid=362963092
- User talk:216.26.223.38
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.26.223.38
- Brigadier General
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brigadier_General&diff=next&oldid=361211801
- 00:06, 11 May 2010 User talk:216.26.211.12
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.26.211.12
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brigadier_General&diff=next&oldid=363140748
- 11:48, 26 May 2010 User talk:216.26.213.69
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/216.26.213.69
- etc.
- List of sock puppets
- User:Swamilive
- User talk:216.26.202.187
- User talk:216.26.211.12
- User talk:216.26.213.69
- User talk:216.26.222.47
- User talk:216.26.223.38
- User talk:216.211.93.108
You may also want to look at the following, whose behaviour has been similar to the most recent edit from this IP:
- 216.26.202.110
- 216.26.213.34
- 216.26.214.39
- 216.26.219.104
- 216.26.223.175
- 216.211.45.190
- 216.211.56.184
- 216.211.72.66
- 216.211.73.24
- 216.211.95.252
- 216.211.97.11
- 216.211.102.216
- 216.211.117.165
This was just to name a few.
There are also several ANI threads about his behavior:
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive168#Yet another Swamilive sockpuppet
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive469#User:Swamilive - Sockpuppeteer and harasser wrapped up and ready to go
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive480#User:Swamilive sockpuppet activity
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#User:Swamilive sockpuppet rampage
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive519#Winnipeg Folk Festival vandal
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive611#User:Swamilive
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive612#Unblock of 24.109.207.40
Recent sockpuppetry can be seen also with these accounts Jarrison Games (talk · contribs) and The Jamesbreadth (talk · contribs) which were just blocked today. Elockid (Talk) 22:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support. De facto banned; a de jure community ban will allow editors to revert with confidence. TFOWR 09:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support, there's nothing but disruption from this editor. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support per above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support Dot the tea's, cross your eyes, and pull one's socks up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support nothing to add to what the above have said -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support per all the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support per TFOWR, so that it will be easier to revert his edits without much fuss. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support - only disruption for a lengthy period. Off2riorob (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Concerns about Elockid's actions in regard to this
I wish to preface this by stating that I am neither condoning nor defending Swamilive's actions, and I have no objection to a ban being placed on their account. I am quite familiar with Swamilive's <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Swamilive history>. My comments here relate solely to concerns about a violation of policy on the part of an admin.
Prior to starting this thread, Elockid placed a {{banned}} template on Swamilive's userpage with the edit summary of "banned. nobody in their right mind would unblock you now". Quick summary of discussion which followed in User talk:Swamilive#Banned?:
- Swamilive asked why they were banned and received a response which stated in part "a ban is completely justified. Oh, the ban is on this account, the ban is placed on you"
- I asked Elockid to provide a link to the ban discussion
- Elockid responded by stating that Swamilive was "basically de facto banned"
- I asked for Elockid to remove the template since Swamilive was not banned per WP:BAN
- After the second request, Elockid did remove the template, but continues to insist that they did nothing wrong
WP:BAN lays out the types of bans that may be enacted. It explicitly states "individual users, including admins, may not directly impose bans". I have suggested to Elockid that they may be misunderstanding what "de facto" bans mean, but they have only countered by saying that Swamilive has been banned since 2008 based on the off-hand comment of an admin whose most recent action is requesting a ban on themselves. I attempted to resolve this on the talk page without bringing it to a noticeboard, but without any hint of success.
I am concerned that Elockid is not only ignoring policy but is also taking a vindictive approach to "vandal fighting" which is ultimately counterproductive. I note that concerns about this were raised in their RFA. I am not suggesting that Elockid be desysoped, but perhaps they can be steered toward observing policy and following the advice of WP:RBI. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- As much as we would love RBI to work, it doesn't work with repeated long-term vandals. Really, It's quite common for long-term vandals. RBI has no affect on him. I don't see it ending anytime soon. Since you're so concerned about de facto bans, I'd suggest you look into other de facto bans that haven't been formally banned such as Xtinadbest, Scibaby, Wikipéire or Nangparbat among many others. The last three being some of the largest serial sockpuppeteers in Wikipedia. Elockid (Talk) 15:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, Elockid, I'm not here to talk about the issue in general, I'm here to discuss your actions in this particular case. You seem to be ducking the issue rather than responding to my assertion that your action was in violation of policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I sense another flamewar (see the Gwen Gale section above) over an admin doing the right thing. Horse = Dead. That is all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Now that Swamilive has been community banned and Neutralhomer's predictive abilities have been shown to be faulty, can we discuss the issue? Or can someone suggest a forum where this will get properly addressed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I sense another flamewar (see the Gwen Gale section above) over an admin doing the right thing. Horse = Dead. That is all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- There's nothing to discuss because you're wrong. First of all, a de facto ban is a ban and is not a ban imposed by anyone individually. I'm merely stating the obvious. The part about the banning policy which states that no individual may impose a ban is true and I would be violating policy if I actually did impose a ban myself. If I individually posted a ban, I wouldn't have bothered to actually look at previous threads on him and actually say that I am banning him, not using stating de facto bans. However, like I said previously, I was stating the obvious because he has been considered banned for a while and a de facto is not a ban imposed by a specific user. Also, note the very first comment/first support in the thread above. It's very evident that the community has been already fed up with his persistent, long-term, disruptive behavior prior to this proposal. See also the last ban about de facto bans. Also, where in the ANI threads or any of the ANI threads out there shows that the community wants him back? No one was and no one is still willing to unblock him and there has already been considerable review of his actions in which people are exhausted with this actions.
- You also didn't know what a de facto ban was and I'm still under the impression that you don't fully understand. Note that when I stated de facto ban, you came to the conclusion that I was going against policy. This already shows that you didn't know what I was talking about or that you are not entirely familiar with policies or you had little to no knowledge of what they were to begin with. Because of this there is a much higher likelihood that you're the one who has the misunderstanding. Based on your comments, the following that the relevant banned users that I mentioned above are also incorrectly banned and thus those peoples' actions are also in question. Note these users are users are actually people who have much more experience (one is a current ArbCom member) about bans than yourself. Are you implying that they're wrong also? Because those are basically in the same situation. The fact is that he was already considered banned and that I was not imposing imposing a ban myself. Elockid (Talk) 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- That's a fairly rambling couple of paragraphs but I'll do my best to respond to the questions you asked or implied. I've explained my understanding of the term "de facto" in this context, but you have your own interpretation. Even assuming that interpretation is correct, where is this in WP:BAN? How does one editor (admin or otherwise) declaring someone to be "de facto" banned differ from one editor declaring someone to be banned, especially since you contend that a "de facto" ban is a ban?
- I'm not in any way, shape, or form defending Swamilive here or asking for them to be unbanned. I have no idea why you linked to the ban discussion of another user. Obviously it wasn't difficult to get Swamilive banned by the community, so it mystifies me why you didn't go that route in the first place rather than unilaterally declaring them to be banned. If other users have been similarly "banned" without regard for the policy, then, yes, those "bans" are wrong regardless of who made them.
- I know that discussions of admins subverting, abusing, or flouting policy can be uncomfortable topics, but note that no admin has seen fit to support your case here, despite my invitation to do so. If I am wrong, you'd think it would be easy to find admins who can show me where I have erred in my argument. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- You also didn't know what a de facto ban was and I'm still under the impression that you don't fully understand. Note that when I stated de facto ban, you came to the conclusion that I was going against policy. This already shows that you didn't know what I was talking about or that you are not entirely familiar with policies or you had little to no knowledge of what they were to begin with. Because of this there is a much higher likelihood that you're the one who has the misunderstanding. Based on your comments, the following that the relevant banned users that I mentioned above are also incorrectly banned and thus those peoples' actions are also in question. Note these users are users are actually people who have much more experience (one is a current ArbCom member) about bans than yourself. Are you implying that they're wrong also? Because those are basically in the same situation. The fact is that he was already considered banned and that I was not imposing imposing a ban myself. Elockid (Talk) 16:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- The same can be said about what you're saying. You haven't gained any support from any "legitimate" user who are actually allowed to edit. I say "legitimate" because the only people who have been supporting your view are either blocked and/or banned sockpuppeteers. It's only natural for them to go this route. No legitimate user has commented me going against policy and in fact, Neutralhomer has already taken the liberty to explain the current situation. Furthermore, this comment by Pdfpdf, a legitimate user suggests that they are in support of how I am dealing with Swamilive.
- FYI, just to show you that rangeblocks don't always work, here are a couple socks that got through the rangeblock: Anthony J. Postwar (talk · contribs) and The Enchanting Wizard of Rhythm (talk · contribs). Elockid (Talk) 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Why are you bringing up rangeblocks now instead of answering the questions I posed above? "Even assuming that interpretation is correct, where is this in WP:BAN? How does one editor (admin or otherwise) declaring someone to be "de facto" banned differ from one editor declaring someone to be banned, especially since you contend that a "de facto" ban is a ban?" FYI, those weren't Swamilive sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, just to show you that rangeblocks don't always work, here are a couple socks that got through the rangeblock: Anthony J. Postwar (talk · contribs) and The Enchanting Wizard of Rhythm (talk · contribs). Elockid (Talk) 17:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm bringing up rangeblocks because you said that rangeblocks will stop him. But it didn't. 3 of the 4 socks I've seen editing after the rangeblock has been block by jpgordon, who has more insight than you or I to whether or not the accounts that the blocked are Swamilive or not. He just didn't tag the first 3 socks as suspected socks as Swamilive, but as confirmed socks of Swamilive. It's also evident that The Enchanting Wizard of Rhythm is a continuation of Anthony J. Postwar which he tagged as a confirmed sock. So I wouldn't be so quick to say that they are socks or not.
Also, In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the user. Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Elockid (Talk) 18:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion about the effectiveness of range blocks versus bans to stop prolific vandals seems like a non-starter to me since the former prevents certain IPs from editing whereas the latter is nothing more than a label, but I'm perfectly happy to debate you on the subject, just not here. This discussion is about your actions in one specific instance. As for your quotation from WP:BAN, where is the discussion in which consensus of uninvolved editors was reached after due consideration? I asked you almost this same question in my first posting on Swamilive's talk page. If there is such a discussion (and please don't offer an unblock request as a community discussion), why didn't you provide me a link at that time? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- What I was interpreting from your question was that where is the formal ban discussion prior. As the quotation suggests, it's not a "formal ban". That's what it seemed you've been asking for the whole time. Check the very first links that I posted on the ban proposal. One of the threads I showed you was from Jeske Couriano. He was already considered banned then. I really don't know why you made the comment that he wanted himself banned because that's irrelevant. This is further supported per, this thread Swamilive's indefinite block was considered and it was agreed that he should remained blocked. The only person that AGF and was considering to unblock ended up retracting their statement after some light was shed. It's quite clear that no one in their right mind wanted to unblock them and now. Elockid (Talk) 22:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- An editor is not banned because Jeske Couriano or any other individual admin says they are banned. Including you, which is why we're having this discussion. Let me quote that part of the policy once again so it sinks in: "...individual users, including admins, may not directly impose bans". Note the words that I highlighted in my last post here. Read over the discussion you link to above - it's hardly a consensus of uninvolved users giving due consideration. I'm going wait for someone else to weigh in because you seem to invent new reasons why you're not in violation of policy with every response you give and it's getting tedious. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah. You've had 4 days to get support and we are approaching finishing our 5th. Guess what? No one, with exception to blocked sockpuppeteers, still has supported what you're saying. One of them is just using it as a reason to try and edit. At least there are two other users, both established and long standing who seem to either suggest that you're wrong or that are an agreement of how I am dealing with things. I really recommend following Neutralhomer's advice of WP:STICK. Elockid (Talk) 03:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't really expecting any support here. I meant that you could find some admin to support your case, perhaps one of those who has placed similar "bans". Neutralhomer goes out of his way to disagree with me and really isn't an editor you should rely on for interpretation of policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- [1] is a similar case. It doesn't really matter though; someone evading a block for years and someone formally banned are both going to treated the exact same. NW (Talk) 11:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Note that the same concerns I'm raising here were raised in that discussion by very experienced users (one of whom is a former admin themselves, I believe). There seems little point in having unwritten rules followed by some which seem to go against the written policy, other than to subvert policy when it is convenient. As Elockid has demonstrated here, it is not difficult to get a long-term vandal banned by community consensus. Why not start with the ban discussion rather than the {{banned}} template? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Admins are not the only people who place "similar ban" tags. I don't know then why you insist that I need admin support. This is a community discussion, so comments from non-admins are perfectly acceptable especially if they are long-standing and established editors. Why shouldn't we rely on Neutralhomer anyways? He's a long standing and established editor like all of us. Secondly, your first comment does suggest you were looking for support. In other words, have other editors steer me in the right direction. Elockid (Talk) 12:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- [1] is a similar case. It doesn't really matter though; someone evading a block for years and someone formally banned are both going to treated the exact same. NW (Talk) 11:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't really expecting any support here. I meant that you could find some admin to support your case, perhaps one of those who has placed similar "bans". Neutralhomer goes out of his way to disagree with me and really isn't an editor you should rely on for interpretation of policy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah. You've had 4 days to get support and we are approaching finishing our 5th. Guess what? No one, with exception to blocked sockpuppeteers, still has supported what you're saying. One of them is just using it as a reason to try and edit. At least there are two other users, both established and long standing who seem to either suggest that you're wrong or that are an agreement of how I am dealing with things. I really recommend following Neutralhomer's advice of WP:STICK. Elockid (Talk) 03:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- An editor is not banned because Jeske Couriano or any other individual admin says they are banned. Including you, which is why we're having this discussion. Let me quote that part of the policy once again so it sinks in: "...individual users, including admins, may not directly impose bans". Note the words that I highlighted in my last post here. Read over the discussion you link to above - it's hardly a consensus of uninvolved users giving due consideration. I'm going wait for someone else to weigh in because you seem to invent new reasons why you're not in violation of policy with every response you give and it's getting tedious. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- What I was interpreting from your question was that where is the formal ban discussion prior. As the quotation suggests, it's not a "formal ban". That's what it seemed you've been asking for the whole time. Check the very first links that I posted on the ban proposal. One of the threads I showed you was from Jeske Couriano. He was already considered banned then. I really don't know why you made the comment that he wanted himself banned because that's irrelevant. This is further supported per, this thread Swamilive's indefinite block was considered and it was agreed that he should remained blocked. The only person that AGF and was considering to unblock ended up retracting their statement after some light was shed. It's quite clear that no one in their right mind wanted to unblock them and now. Elockid (Talk) 22:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Fixing a topic change (with mixed up history)
Newbie admin question: While patrolling the dashboard I came across this CSD tag. Technically it fails the G7 tag due to multiple authors... however the bigger problem it uncovered is that this article appears to have morphed into a completely different topic. At one point it was about an album, but was then redirected to the artists talk page. The problem arises when an IP turns the redirect into an article about a new topic. I can think of a few ways to clean this up, but none are pretty (e.g. hist merge to break off the old album history from this new mammal stub). Any suggestions? Thanks. 7 22:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- 1) Delete article 2) Restore previous revisions up to the new article being created 3) Move [without redirect] on top of Ulisses (album) 4) Restore deleted revisions of Ulisses (album) 5) Restore new revisions of new topic Ulisses. 6) Revert to latest good versions. –xenotalk 13:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- You do the hokey cokey and you turn around..... Curiosly, this is the second time in a few days that precisely this problem has come up, although prior to that I'd never personally seen it happen. Fortunately the other article is still in userspace - and should stay there for notability reasons. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank for the tips xeno - I think that worked. 7 14:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Should we add tips on how to sort out this situation somewhere? WP:HISTMERGE? WP:SPLIT? Both? Fences&Windows 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea. I gave it a shot at WP:HISTSPLIT on the hist merge page. Feel free to modify. 7 01:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Should we add tips on how to sort out this situation somewhere? WP:HISTMERGE? WP:SPLIT? Both? Fences&Windows 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank for the tips xeno - I think that worked. 7 14:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- You do the hokey cokey and you turn around..... Curiosly, this is the second time in a few days that precisely this problem has come up, although prior to that I'd never personally seen it happen. Fortunately the other article is still in userspace - and should stay there for notability reasons. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Protection level on Eminem
I don't really understand how the new approved changes process works, but ever since Eminem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)'s protection level was changed, every edit to the article has been vandalism. Can we change the protection back to semi-protection so that real editors don't have to keep reverting the vandalism on this article? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable to me. In the future, WP:RFPP would be the best forum for this type of discussion. John Reaves 03:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was brought up there. I wanted to ask here about the different levels of protection, since I don't understand how they work. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- The system seems to be working then, Unprotected > PC1 > Semi > PC2 >Full. PC1 was tried and found not to be appropriate, so the level of protection has been raised to Semi. No big problem really and requests should be made at RFPP if it is found that PC1 isn't the appropriate level of protection. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- The system seems to be working then, Unprotected > PC1 > Semi > PC2 >Full. PC1 was tried and found not to be appropriate, so the level of protection has been raised to Semi. No big problem really and requests should be made at RFPP if it is found that PC1 isn't the appropriate level of protection. Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- It was brought up there. I wanted to ask here about the different levels of protection, since I don't understand how they work. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Except the protection has been removed, and the vandalism level is back to what it was. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Kind of. It is as far as you and me (and us) are concerned, in that we see the vandalism (and have to deal with it too, such is our lot...) But for casual readers, the vandalism is invisible: they simply see the last good revision.
- So... pending changes protection is good (for the reader), but not as good as semi-protection (for most editors).
- I've just declined semi-protection for an article with pending changes protection, while simultaneously another admin semi-d the same article. In hindsight I'm seeing semi-protection as a better option for this article than pending changes protection, but it does mean blocking legitimate edits. It looks to me offhand that Eminem does has a few legitimate edits being accepted by reviewers, so I'd still prefer pending changes protection to semi. I suspect the editors there dealing with the vandalism may disagree with me, however...!
- TFOWR 17:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've added it to my watchlist and I will semi it later if the lunacy continues. However, i'd be only too happy if another admin beat me to it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- What happened here is that semi-protection was removed in order to test PC1, thereby setting PC up for failure, because this is an article that's vandalized a lot, which is why long-term semi-protection was added in the first place. It's all very well to say that "only" logged-in readers can see the vandalism, but that's tens of thousands of people, more readers than most newspapers have. I don't understand why we're choosing high-profile semi-protected vandalism targets—even Adolf Hitler was reduced to PC1 yesterday—to produce results that everyone could have predicted. Would it not make more sense to use PC1 on articles with some problems that don't quite rise to the level of needing semi-protection? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well you can say that this is an experiment. What happens on Adolf Hitler's page was a bet, and a failed one too. So at least we can now safely say that PC1 is not appropriate for that page, rather than having no data at all about what could of happened. Could of been predicted? probably, but it is important in an experiment that you back up the results you get from actual data, rather than speculation. 山本一郎 (会話) 18:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I see no point in an experiment that involves me banging you hard on the knee with a hammer to see whether it causes you pain. :) When the idea of PC was introduced, I believe everyone thought it would provide extra protection—protection for articles that didn't necessarily need semi-protection but which were nevertheless vulnerable, such as BLPs. But we're seeing it used here to downgrade protection, including on BLPs, then when vandalism and BLP violations get through, we say "don't worry, casual readers can't see it." But we have huge numbers of non-casual readers who do see it—as I said earlier, our non-casual readership exceeds the readership of most, if not all, newspapers . So it's still a lot of vandalism and potential libel being shown to a lot of readers because we removed the protection. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ultimately, I think the criteria for applying PCP is up for the community to decide. If the community comes to a consensus that the scope of PCP should be expanded beyond the articles covered by the current protection policy, I say go ahead with it and change the current protection policy so that the scope of PCP increases. As for the visibility of drafts, I believe it's something you have to talk to the developers about. I'm all for having the reviewed edit displayed as the default revision unless you change your preference, but that's me. 山本一郎 (会話) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree about the community, but I don't recall the community deciding to test PCP on articles that already needed long-term semi-protection. My memory of all the discussions about flagged revisions is that they'd provide extra protection, not less, and that was what the community wanted. I'm not saying I agree with that—my position has always been that we should semi-protect BLPs and leave the rest as it is—but that was clearly what the community seemed to want. But somewhere along the way that got changed. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Slim. I brought this up at WT:Reviewing, as it happens. Downgrading protection for Bible, Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler was no, by any stretch of the imagination, a good idea. All this has done is create extra work for editors who, instead of improving the article, have to revert whatever drive by crap someone feels like adding. PC is good for some articles, but what was going to happen to these articles and many others was very easily predictable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Don't forget 4chan article too, it's another case of a failed PC where I had to put it back to semi. In any case, as far as I know, there will be another poll at the end of the trial where the community will provide feedbacks, and hopefully then, we can decide actual scope of PCP. There's always a WP:RFC if that doesn't help. Also, what's predictable to you, may not be so easily predictable for everyone else. Applying PC on some of these pages like 4chan and Adolf Hitler is to convince everyone, not just me, that PC just simply don't work for some articles, and I say it is imperative that we have something to show to everyone as a record at least, because there's probably at least someone who thinks that PC should completely replace semi-protection when its time to poll how we are going to use PCP. I am however, not going to disagree with you that putting these articles further under PC1 will only waste everyone elses time. 山本一郎 (会話) 19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Slim. I brought this up at WT:Reviewing, as it happens. Downgrading protection for Bible, Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler was no, by any stretch of the imagination, a good idea. All this has done is create extra work for editors who, instead of improving the article, have to revert whatever drive by crap someone feels like adding. PC is good for some articles, but what was going to happen to these articles and many others was very easily predictable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree about the community, but I don't recall the community deciding to test PCP on articles that already needed long-term semi-protection. My memory of all the discussions about flagged revisions is that they'd provide extra protection, not less, and that was what the community wanted. I'm not saying I agree with that—my position has always been that we should semi-protect BLPs and leave the rest as it is—but that was clearly what the community seemed to want. But somewhere along the way that got changed. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Another issue is the wheel-warring it's causing. Eminem was under long-term semi-protection because it's a frequent target. You replaced it with PC1. The vandalism started up again. John Reaves restored semi-protection. Then The ed17 removed semi-protection again and restored PC1. The vandalism now continues: it appears that every edit since then has been vandalism or a revert. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think with the level of vandalism it receives, Eminem should be put back to semi.
- There's been plenty of discussions on different FlaggedRevs implementation; the proposal which has been adopted stated that articles should meet the burden for semi protection (SP), but it had a provision that articles subject to too high levels of vandalism should be put back to semi. The application of protection is subject to considerable discretion. Let's say that PC adds a more flexible level of protection, which can be used in cases where SP is justified in terms of policy, but where using SP would be unnecessarily restrictive. There are several needs to balance: to allow constructive editing, to protect the encyclopedia from harm, to avoid wasting resources unnecessarily, etc; they should be considered on a case by case basis. Cenarium (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Another issue is the wheel-warring it's causing. Eminem was under long-term semi-protection because it's a frequent target. You replaced it with PC1. The vandalism started up again. John Reaves restored semi-protection. Then The ed17 removed semi-protection again and restored PC1. The vandalism now continues: it appears that every edit since then has been vandalism or a revert. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose what I'm wondering is who has made these decisions, because they seem to have taken the community by surprise. Admins are having their protection decisions repeatedly undone with reference to some consensus somewhere else. Articles that need semi-protection are being exposed, including BLPs and FAs. I've been told elsewhere that we need talk-page consensus to remove full protection and replace it with PC2—but since when have we needed talk-page consensus for protection decisions? The whole thing seems very labour-intensive for little or no gain. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's better to have a rough consensus for level 2 because it's a bit controversial still (but of course not to remove full protection), there's no agreed policy on its use yet, but that's just about a handful of cases. The proposal was approved in this poll. Beyond that, the decisions are made by the community as needed. The articles are not exposed, PCP can provide an adequate level of protection, as can be seen for plenty of articles (I'll try to make a survey). And articles are regularly unprotected to test if protection is still needed, this is common practice, so I don't see the big deal here. Cenarium (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can you show me where consensus was formed to use articles already under long-term semi-protection for the test? That seems to be the source of the problem—the downgrading of protection. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- A problem in only a few cases, though. The discussions are at WP:PCQ and talk page. Just to make the point clear, PC will allow to better protect BLPs, since most admins are reluctant to apply SP on articles which meet the burden for SP but not in a substantial manner, however they would be more willing to apply the less restrictive PCP. It's a question of discretion and judgment. Cenarium (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can you show me where consensus was formed to use articles already under long-term semi-protection for the test? That seems to be the source of the problem—the downgrading of protection. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's better to have a rough consensus for level 2 because it's a bit controversial still (but of course not to remove full protection), there's no agreed policy on its use yet, but that's just about a handful of cases. The proposal was approved in this poll. Beyond that, the decisions are made by the community as needed. The articles are not exposed, PCP can provide an adequate level of protection, as can be seen for plenty of articles (I'll try to make a survey). And articles are regularly unprotected to test if protection is still needed, this is common practice, so I don't see the big deal here. Cenarium (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I suppose what I'm wondering is who has made these decisions, because they seem to have taken the community by surprise. Admins are having their protection decisions repeatedly undone with reference to some consensus somewhere else. Articles that need semi-protection are being exposed, including BLPs and FAs. I've been told elsewhere that we need talk-page consensus to remove full protection and replace it with PC2—but since when have we needed talk-page consensus for protection decisions? The whole thing seems very labour-intensive for little or no gain. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
SPI
Yeah, there is a backlog over there so any help would be appreciated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the best place for this request. There has been a bit of a marathon discussion on a RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Australian place name convention and I would appreciate the involvement of a non-involved administrator/editor to assess the resulting consensus, if any. Regards, Mattinbgn\talk 07:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
RFA - Administrator recall for User:Herostratus
Prior related threads:
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive214#Recall_petition
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard thread
RFA subpage, administrator recall, now taking place, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Discussion has since been closed early as being the wrong forum... -Andrew c [talk] 03:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please also note the discussion taking place here regarding my adding the notice at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall (diff) and Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process (diff). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- This close was inappropriate, and has been reverted as such. RFAs should not be closed on dubious grounds. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I find it very worrying and offensive that someone, not to mention an administrator, would attempt to unilaterally close down a community discussion based on such weak justification as "wrong forum". As far as I'm concerned, "wrong forum" should NEVER be used as a reasoning for shutting down an in-progress community discussion (especially one that so many people have already contributed to) unless it was started by a vandal, abusive sock or POV pushing SPA. I just may draft an essay about appropriate and inappropriate use of "wrong forum" to help guide us in the future. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I find it very worrying and offensive that a non-crat (and not even an admin) unilaterally reverted a crat closure. Nobody elected Ncmvocalist a crat, while Nihonjoe is a duly promoted crat. Closing RfAs is one of the main functions of crats. If a crat closure is to be reverted, it must be done by another crat, after a crat chat. Nsk92 (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't, to be honest. I'd have preferred it if there had been some public discussion first, but Nihonjoe's close appears to be contested by the community (I also believe the close was unwise), while Ncmvocalist's re-open seems to have met with broad support. I think it would have been wise to have left the re-opening to a 'crat, but the end result is the same. Unless there's some new super-secret 'crat reason for preventing WP:RECALL RfAs? TFOWR 12:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- We need to get our priorities straight here. Nsk92 appears to have a very flawed understanding as to what WP:IAR means, much like Nihonjoe, otherwise that user wouldn't be advancing arguments of this nature. Bureaucrats are not promoted (or for that matter, permitted) to rob users of their rights (which are afforded by community policy), or, to misrepresent the letter and spirit of other policies and procedures to reflect personal interpretations that are not supported by a community consensus. This is regardless of if bureaucrats do so individually or as a group, in public or in secret, or in any other fashion. Nihonjoe inappropriately ignored all rules to unilaterally impose his personal versions (or wildly inaccurate interpretations) of policy/process on the community [2] [3] [4]. I restored policy that allows admins to voluntarily choose the terms of any recall process that they wish. As Nihonjoe's close was grossly and fundamentally problematic (and others expressed concerns to this effect), I also boldly reverted the inappropriate close thinking that Wikipedia is not an unnecessary bureaucracy where process wonkery rules all. I was especially mindful and considerate of the fact Herostratus, the subject of this RFA, explicitly did not want fellow administrators to needlessly interfere in the process - unlike Nihonjoe, I am not an administrator, which was in accordance with Herostratus' criteria also. Nevertheless, I fully explained the reasons for reverting the close here, and I stand by my rationale and actions in this matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I find it very worrying and offensive that a non-crat (and not even an admin) unilaterally reverted a crat closure. Nobody elected Ncmvocalist a crat, while Nihonjoe is a duly promoted crat. Closing RfAs is one of the main functions of crats. If a crat closure is to be reverted, it must be done by another crat, after a crat chat. Nsk92 (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't we used to call that WP:IAR? Closing during an entire process because of a personal interpretation as to what process to use (acting as if the current policies are in fact set in stone as opposed to being merely prescriptive) is really questionable judgment from an administrator, let along a bureaucrat. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- ...someone, not to mention an administrator, would... I think you mean "bureaucrat" ;-) I'm assuming the closing 'crat simply hadn't encountered WP:RECALL. I agree that their close was inappropriate, and I agree with the re-opening by Ncmvocalist. Unless Nihonjoe has made a habit of doing this, however, I'd suggest there's nothing further to do here...? TFOWR 11:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- I find it very worrying and offensive that someone, not to mention an administrator, would attempt to unilaterally close down a community discussion based on such weak justification as "wrong forum". As far as I'm concerned, "wrong forum" should NEVER be used as a reasoning for shutting down an in-progress community discussion (especially one that so many people have already contributed to) unless it was started by a vandal, abusive sock or POV pushing SPA. I just may draft an essay about appropriate and inappropriate use of "wrong forum" to help guide us in the future. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- This close was inappropriate, and has been reverted as such. RFAs should not be closed on dubious grounds. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
"Unable to proceed" syntax error on template
Not a huge deal but something isn't right. For example (Non-admins only; admins should log out to see what I mean) when you try to move a fully protected page example the bottom right isn't showing up properly when it's discussing an edit request. Thanks – Tommy [message] 19:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Any idea which template is responsible here? Hopefully that's a template, not part of the wikimedia software; though I suspect the latter would have been noticed sooner. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think it might be as small as a missing [ – Tommy [message] 19:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about a missing [, but I tried this myself by attempting to move Template:! and it seems that some of the wikitext is appearing and some is being parsed correctly; without being able to see the wikicode of the page, as a special page, it's difficult to tell. Hopefully an admin here will know which template is displayed here and then we can figure out what's wrong with the template. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Youre right. I dk. The discuss this page at the top right is also wrong. – Tommy [message] 19:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think it might be as small as a missing [ – Tommy [message] 19:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- The message is in MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext. It appears that {{TALKPAGENAME}} does not work correctly. Ruslik_Zero 19:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thats no surprise....thats because its trying to use Special talk:MovePage/User:Tommy2010 since its being parsed on a Special page. FunPika 20:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nope I get the same errors when I try to move Female ejaculation – Tommy [message] 20:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes Tommy, but in that case it's referring to Special talk:MovePage/Female ejaculation, so it's still being used on a special page. This needs to be changed to give it an alternative if {{TALKPAGENAME}} is blank. Obviously MediaWiki content is admin-only or I'd do it myself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- I assume the problem is that this page is also used for other actions, which aren't on special pages. Probably the original coder forgot to take into account that it'd be used on Special Pages in this situation. No biggie, fairly easily fixed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes Tommy, but in that case it's referring to Special talk:MovePage/Female ejaculation, so it's still being used on a special page. This needs to be changed to give it an alternative if {{TALKPAGENAME}} is blank. Obviously MediaWiki content is admin-only or I'd do it myself. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Nope I get the same errors when I try to move Female ejaculation – Tommy [message] 20:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thats no surprise....thats because its trying to use Special talk:MovePage/User:Tommy2010 since its being parsed on a Special page. FunPika 20:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Overdue speedy
Hi, this image has been tagged with {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} for well over a fortnight now, somehow got overlooked, could someone speedy it please? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 09:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- An administrator declined the speedy 11 days ago, and you re-added it. Take it to FFD, please. Courcelles (talk) 09:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- The uploader has marked the image as "replaceable" so the removal of the speedy, justified as "image not replaceable", was clearly incorrect... ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 09:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Except that appears to be more of a tagging issue than the truth- every other Doctor Who serial has a screenshot, tagged as non-replaceable, because the BBC doesn't freely release such things. Anyways, it's at FFD now. Courcelles (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- The uploader has marked the image as "replaceable" so the removal of the speedy, justified as "image not replaceable", was clearly incorrect... ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 09:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
{{rfctag}}
What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})