Line 438: | Line 438: | ||
:I suppose you mean "backlog"? →<small><span style="border:1px solid #edc200;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Σ|Σ]]</b> [[Special:Contributions/Σ|<font color="#CC0000">⚑</font>]] [[User_talk:Σ|<font style="color:gold;background:#CC0000;"> ☭ </font>]]</span></small> 04:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
:I suppose you mean "backlog"? →<small><span style="border:1px solid #edc200;padding:1px;"><b>[[User:Σ|Σ]]</b> [[Special:Contributions/Σ|<font color="#CC0000">⚑</font>]] [[User_talk:Σ|<font style="color:gold;background:#CC0000;"> ☭ </font>]]</span></small> 04:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
::Well, yeah, though it is backed up, too. :) [[User:The Mark of the Beast|The Mark of the Beast]] ([[User talk:The Mark of the Beast|talk]]) 04:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
::Well, yeah, though it is backed up, too. :) [[User:The Mark of the Beast|The Mark of the Beast]] ([[User talk:The Mark of the Beast|talk]]) 04:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration#Poll on extending ArbCom resolution for two years]] == |
|||
Can an uninvolved admin like to have a look at this with a view to closing it, as someone who supported extending the ban, it is clear that there is no consensus for that and keeping it open is unlikely to change that. [[User:Mtking|<span style="color:Green;text-shadow:lightgreen 0.110em 0.110em 0.110em;">Mt</span>]][[User talk:Mtking|<span style="color:gold;">king</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Mtking|<font color="gold"> (edits) </font>]]</sup> 08:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:32, 2 October 2011
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Would admins close the various proposals at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Main Page features? Started on 14 July 2011, the discussion has occurred for over 30 days. RFC bot (talk · contribs) removed the expired RfC template on 13 August 2011.
Perhaps admins can use Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security as a template for closure. Admins close the different proposals on the page with summaries of the consensuses, and when the all the discussions have been closed, the entire RfC is closed with an archive template. Cunard (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Current timestamp to prevent archiving by Cluebot. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Proposal: date formats in reference sections? Both discussions are listed at Template:Centralized discussion. The first one is a stale discussion, having not received any comments since 22 August 2011. The second discussion has lasted for over 30 days.
If either of the RfCs result in "no consensus", a closure like that in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC, where the opposing arguments are summarized, will be helpful to the participants. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Current timestamp to prevent archiving by Cluebot. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Backlog at WP:SFD
Can some admins please come and help out at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion? The backlog there is out of controll again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Would admins close the following SfD discussions:
Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/6#Cricket-admin-stub- already handled- Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Czech-*-stub templates - Needs action, see below
- Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/11#Category:Northern Ireland election stubs/Template:NI-election-stub
- Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/18#Rail -> Rail transport- Needs action, see below
- Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/20#Retail companies- Needs action, see below
- Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/21#Template:US-transport-company-stub- Needs action, see below
Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/August/28- already handledWikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/2- already handledWikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/6- already handledWikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Madagascar province categories- already handledWikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/8#Old German district categories- already handled- Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/9#Several new English football stub types
- Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Ivory Coast sport templates
- Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Template:China-road-stub
- Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/14#Category:Pakistan rail stubs
- Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/15#American football offensive lineman, pre-1900 birth stubs
- Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2011/September/16#'Pre-' category maintenance
Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Closed, but left unactioned as I didn't know what to do :3 Stop by my TP if you can tell me what specific action is needed. :) -- DQ (t) (e) 06:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Agathoclea (talk · contribs), Fastily (talk · contribs), and DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing many of the discussions listed above. I've added several more SfDs, which have become overdue. Cunard (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I did all the new categories and templates for the rail transport but found a few categories and templates that were not nominated at that I recorded at User:Agathoclea/AWB#strays Agathoclea (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Village pump (proposals) closures needed
Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Structure WP:WQA conversations and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Remove ability for new users to create other accounts? Both discussions were listed at Template:Centralized discussion and delisted to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive owing to inactivity. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), for closing the WQA RfC. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
TreasuryTag indef blocked
I have indefinitely blocked User:TreasuryTag. He was indef blocked on 29 August by Ioeth, and unblocked on 2 September by HJ Mitchell, but with conditions as stated here. I have explained my reasoning for the reblock at User talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2011/Sep#Indef block. Review of this block and any changes (unblock, shorter block, topic ban, whatever) to it are welcome. Fram (talk) 09:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know how someone is supposed to know ahead of time that a request for delete will result in a keep. However, if there's an issue with Dr. Who, maybe a topic ban from that subject would work better. Then there should be no wiggle room. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- It should be noted that this thread was started regarding this nomination for deletion where TT nominated an actor on Dr Who for deletion in apparent violation of his unblock editing restrictions. Buffs (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Um, no. It was started regarding another Dr. Who related AfD he made, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Christmas special (Doctor Who), as explained on his talk page. Fram (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- It should be noted that this thread was started regarding this nomination for deletion where TT nominated an actor on Dr Who for deletion in apparent violation of his unblock editing restrictions. Buffs (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think this was a good block. Any reasonable editor should have been able to look at that article, looked at WP:CRYSTAL, and drawn the obvious conclusion to delete. There is no guarantee that this particular episode will be notable, there's precious little information on it, and deletion is the obvious choice unless and until there is significant coverage indicating that this episode is, indeed, notable. The fact that the original blocking admin knew of this and failed to view it as an infraction of the conditions that he imposed seems particularly relevant. → ROUX ₪ 10:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Any reasobale editor who knew anything about Dr. Who, like TreasuryTag does, would know that the Xmas episode, once it is announced, is notable, and that (as has been said in the AfD) even a subsequent cancellation of it would be notable. "Crystal" doesn't mean that everything that still has to happen can't be notable. As for the original blocking admin: um, no, it is the original unblocking admin, not the original blocking admin. Fram (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- That looks like a good block to me - it was a clear violation of the unblock conditions. Given their block log, TreasuryTag was already on very thin ice, so it's appropriate to enforce a strict interpretation of the conditions. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Without too much knowledge of the past history the nominations (a few other unsuitable ones were done at the same time) one could apply AGF but the obvious knowledge of the DrWho subject matter makes it clearly disruptive. Compounding the fact that opposing (there were no supporting ones) views get hounded with WP:BASH. Anyway moot as this edit is in clear violation of the NoProd rule laid out in the conditional unblock. Agathoclea (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- (copied from TT's talk page): The edit highlighted by Agathoclea (talk · contribs) was indeed a violation of the unblock conditions. However, it was a genuine mistake which I reported to the unblocking admin as soon as I noticed it. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Different article - different Prod. Agathoclea (talk) 11:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- (copied from TT's talk page): The edit highlighted by Agathoclea (talk · contribs) was indeed a violation of the unblock conditions. However, it was a genuine mistake which I reported to the unblocking admin as soon as I noticed it. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- (ecx2) This is an odd one ... the original limitation/condition of unblock probably should have gone so far as to completely disallow AFD for Dr Who. However, the wording is clear, and the fact that an article that was Speedy Kept was AFD'd means that TT did break the letter of the law, and the block is good. Attempts to weasel out of it is probably the biggest incident of wikilawyering, ever. I'd hate to think that TT originally accepted the condition knowing that it could be milked this way. I would be willing to see TT unblocked but only on the condition that the original blocking conditions be extended to disallow AFDing Dr Who-related articles, broadly construed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have no intention of getting bogged down in irrelevant debate about the exact unblock terms and whether or not they were breached. It is not only clear that the spirit of the restriction was breached, but I think it is more important that Treasury Tag's recent overall history relating to AfDs has been highly disruptive, irrespective of the unblock terms, and not only on Dr Who related AfDs. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyright symbol was ridiculous. As far as I am concerned, the question to ask is not "has Treasury Tag breached the specific terms of the unblock conditions", but rather "taking into account all the relevant history (including the unblock conditions, the user's previous 16 blocks, etc etc) would unblocking Treasury Tag again be beneficial to Wikipedia?" To that question the answer is very clearly "no". I don't think that restrictions on Dr Who-related article are enough, as that is not the only problem area. The indefinite block should be confirmed, and the current unblock request should be declined. There has to be a limit to how many chances we give to troublesome editors. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I cannot say I know much about Dr. Who stuff, but I agree with you that his proposal Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copyright symbol was ridiculous. Giving editors like him free reign to annoy others on procedural grounds is a significant part of the unpleasantness I found editing Wikipedia. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Unblock with clarified, simplified restrictions. The linked unblock restrictions are too complicated. TreasuryTag’s recent AfD nomination is not a clear violation of readily apparent sanctions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Hinsight is 20-20 but I think events like this illustrate that these kinds of restrictions may not be the best idea. I do not doubt those knowledgeable in this area who say that TT should have known the result of this AfD, but the fact remains that technically any AfD could go in several directions. It's better to restrict someone from an activity altogether than to do so conditionally in ways that it could be argued the person couldn't know in advance if the activity would violate the restriction. That said, I've seen TT mentioned at AN/I and AN enough times now, even defended him on occasion, to know that this goes well beyond technicalities. He has a problem with knowingly editing in ways that the community has, through consensus and through its representatives (admins) told him not to. I think that's a bigger problem than the technicalities of this block or the restrictions he was originally given.Griswaldo (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever happens to TT regarding this, I think there is also another problem that needs to be considered, and especially should TT get unblocked or have his block shortened. Had I seen this AfD I would have voted delete, and I think quite a few others outside the walled garden of fandom surrounding this TV show (like those of others) might concur as well. Entries like this serve only one purpose - PR for the show and the network. They have no business on Wikipedia in my opinion. If TT keeps on AfDing articles like this and they keep on snowballing to keep I think he should be encouraged to start a much broader community discussion about them, while promising not to AfD any more Dr. Who entries. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good block, must be seen in the context of TT's history and weighing the net positives/negatives of blocking/not blocking. For the future, it would be a shame to completely lose someone who is enthusiastic, intelligent, knowledgeable and knows how WP works. If these positives could be channelled by some (very) strict boundaries - eg, no AfD nominations permitted - it would be nice to think we could deal with TT with something short of what would effectively be a ban. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm curious to know why there's any debate about Dr. Who episodes. Isn't there a project team for this long-running show? Isn't there some consensus within that team? I'm comparing it with Star Trek, where every episode has its own article, including the incredibly silly ones such as The Omega Glory. What's going on with Dr. Who that there is frequent debate on individual episode articles? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is the heart of the problem. I don't follow the project but from what I have seen there is sufficiant coverage of every episode to warrant an article, at least for the modern incarnation. That coverage is obviously less if the episode has not aired yet but it tends to be pretty instant and widespread once details are released. The problem here is that a one-man-band tries to fight the status quo via AFD. Why else would you nomminate an actor for deletion after he gets announced to have a (repeat) role in an episode that compared to other episodes has a heightened media interest. Agathoclea (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with the implications of what Baseball Bugs has written. There is no reason to have information about upcoming episodes. We are not here to further promotional work for the network. You realize that almost 100% of information about upcoming episodes originates as PR. That one or two industry sources have done as the network, or the producers have hoped and used their PR to stimulate interest in the upcoming episode does not mean that there is significant independent coverage here. I think it is too bad that people feel issues like this should be left to groups of fans on Wikipedia. There needs to be wider community discussion here. I think what TT is doing is disruptive, but at the heart of it he has a very good point.Griswaldo (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- A little off topic but I really don't think the BBC needs Wikipedia to promote a popular show that's been around since 1963. That's why I call articles like the one in question (ie "verifiable" articles on fictional elements of otherwise highly notable works of fiction) "low risk" articles and I think it's a damn shame that there is more drama generated by these articles then there is over BLPs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, you didn't really answer my question: Is it, or is it not, appropriate to have separate articles for each episode of a TV series, especially those as widely known as Star Trek and Dr. Who? I mean, I could see not having a separate article for each episode of My Mother the Car. But Trek and Dr. Who are widely discussed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I think that having separate episode articles for shows like My Mother the Car or Supertrain would be silly but if they did exist, I wouldn't think the sky is falling. For popular shows, not all of them have separate episode articles. Stargate SG1 and it's spinoffs are good examples. Only a few episodes have articles and the rest are redirects to episode lists. However, I would be happy if such decisions were discussed in wikiprojects and not at AFD. Maybe then, some of those AFDs I now close as "no consensus" after 3 weeks with no comments might start getting comments. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- BB, please reread what I wrote. I think stubs are fine if we can reasonably expect something will be notable. What I object to is writing articles based only on PR.Griswaldo (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Then EVERY article about a future event has to be a stub, because EVERY ONE OF THEM is going to be based (directly or indirectly) on press releases. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- BB, please reread what I wrote. I think stubs are fine if we can reasonably expect something will be notable. What I object to is writing articles based only on PR.Griswaldo (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I think that having separate episode articles for shows like My Mother the Car or Supertrain would be silly but if they did exist, I wouldn't think the sky is falling. For popular shows, not all of them have separate episode articles. Stargate SG1 and it's spinoffs are good examples. Only a few episodes have articles and the rest are redirects to episode lists. However, I would be happy if such decisions were discussed in wikiprojects and not at AFD. Maybe then, some of those AFDs I now close as "no consensus" after 3 weeks with no comments might start getting comments. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- But after the episode has aired, we would have an article about it, right ? (Again, this is true because it is an internationally popular show that no episode since its relaunch has not proven notable - this is not true across the board for any TV episode). Yes, personally, I wouldn't be rushing to create an article on the episode once it has been announced, but I wouldn't be deleting efforts once its created because its not an issue with WP:CRYSTAL. (If anything it falls into WP:HAMMER, since it lacks a name, but that's just me). So yes, it may seem like PR while the episode hasn't aired, but I could say the same for any yet-published work, books, film, video games, etc., and really, that's more harm than good ; the wealth of development and other type of information of behind-the-scenes that are good in these articles only come about before the publication, with reception following afterwards. And basically, that's the right part of the block; it is a gross misunderstanding of CRYSTAL on TT's part; this, and other DW episodes TT's nominated, will have articles once they have aired, so it makes no sense to delete these once the BBC has affirmed they will be airing. It becomes disruptive to do so. --MASEM (t) 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- If anything we would need an exception to the notability guideline stating that unaired episodes are not notable even if they otherwise qualify under GNG. So far to my knowledge that exception has never even be proposed - and I doubt any success would be likely because on the ramifications this would have accross the board eg STS-400. Agathoclea (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- @Masem. I disagree. CRYSTAL says "to avoid advertising and unverified claims." There is no way to avoid advertising when every piece of information available is part of a marketing effort by the network. This particular entry is almost entirely based on what the BBC has said about the episode. Under point 5 it also says, "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate." That is essentially what we have in cases like this. I think there are several solutions to this issue but they need to be discussed. I think you could argue, per WP:CRYSTAL, to have a stub that contains nothing except a one sentence announcement about the upcoming episode, if the episode has a number or a name. But beyond that CRYSTAL actually cautions against the type of writing that is taking place, based purely on promotional information. Consider also that writing such articles means giving the network or company and advantage once the event has happened or the product has been released, since what is already in place is their PR. Subsequent information about the actual product from third party sources now has to compete with the current consensus version, which again is crafted out of information that was originally PR. We really need a broader discussion about this if you ask me. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- That narrow interpretation would rub out every article about something that hasn't been released yet or hasn't occurred yet. Like, for example, Super Bowl XLVIII. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think its narrow, I think it is precise and in line with other policies as well, like WP:N and WP:V in terms of "independent" coverage. But to your main point I'm unsure of why there would be a problem with not having articles on topics that can't yet be covered sufficiently from independent sources, or merely having stubs with announcements until such a time that the product is actually released. Can you explain why that would be a bad thing? Is more and faster always better? I don't think so. I'm sure there is plenty of work to still be done on the entries of existing Dr. Who episodes, which can be written from independent sources. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Again, I point to WP:HAMMER, where, if it were up to me, I would have not created this article now but likely dropped a redirect to the 6th series page, but knowing that there will be an article there some day with high confidence, it makes no sense to try to delete it if someone else actually created it based on the BBC announcement. That said, even if TT thought the article shouldn't have been there, deletion was the wrong answer, since a merge with redirect makes a lot more sense (even if yet unnamed, its a valid search term). --MASEM (t) 13:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder if there's any "independent" source for the 2014 Super Bowl. Sure, it's been written about. But what would their sources be, other than NFL press releases? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Except you are 100% wrong about that. Did you bother to check Super Bowl XLVIII before making this argument? Doubtful. The Superbowl article is almost entirely about events that have already happened, as part of the preparations for the Superbowl and do not originate from press releases. Have a look for yourself. I think the same standard should apply to these articles as to upcoming TV show episodes, but if you ask me the superbowl article does a good job of it.Griswaldo (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Griswaldo is not alone in thinking that we should not have articles that are merely a network's PR for an unaired episode or program. I agree with that assessment. This is not the place for the general discussion that apparently needs to be had about that though. Griswaldo, want to start a discussion somewhere else (WP:VPP, WT:N...?) about this and link it here? LadyofShalott 13:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- If Dr. Who episodes are considered notable as Super Bowls are, then information about future episodes and future Super Bowls are also notable. I say again, the only source for a future Super Bowl is the NFL itself. And for a future film or TV show that is likely to be produced, the argument that the source is a press release implies the possibility that the creators are lying. That is not a good stance for wikipedia to be taking. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Griswaldo is not alone in thinking that we should not have articles that are merely a network's PR for an unaired episode or program. I agree with that assessment. This is not the place for the general discussion that apparently needs to be had about that though. Griswaldo, want to start a discussion somewhere else (WP:VPP, WT:N...?) about this and link it here? LadyofShalott 13:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Except you are 100% wrong about that. Did you bother to check Super Bowl XLVIII before making this argument? Doubtful. The Superbowl article is almost entirely about events that have already happened, as part of the preparations for the Superbowl and do not originate from press releases. Have a look for yourself. I think the same standard should apply to these articles as to upcoming TV show episodes, but if you ask me the superbowl article does a good job of it.Griswaldo (talk) 13:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think its narrow, I think it is precise and in line with other policies as well, like WP:N and WP:V in terms of "independent" coverage. But to your main point I'm unsure of why there would be a problem with not having articles on topics that can't yet be covered sufficiently from independent sources, or merely having stubs with announcements until such a time that the product is actually released. Can you explain why that would be a bad thing? Is more and faster always better? I don't think so. I'm sure there is plenty of work to still be done on the entries of existing Dr. Who episodes, which can be written from independent sources. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- That narrow interpretation would rub out every article about something that hasn't been released yet or hasn't occurred yet. Like, for example, Super Bowl XLVIII. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree with the implications of what Baseball Bugs has written. There is no reason to have information about upcoming episodes. We are not here to further promotional work for the network. You realize that almost 100% of information about upcoming episodes originates as PR. That one or two industry sources have done as the network, or the producers have hoped and used their PR to stimulate interest in the upcoming episode does not mean that there is significant independent coverage here. I think it is too bad that people feel issues like this should be left to groups of fans on Wikipedia. There needs to be wider community discussion here. I think what TT is doing is disruptive, but at the heart of it he has a very good point.Griswaldo (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- That is the heart of the problem. I don't follow the project but from what I have seen there is sufficiant coverage of every episode to warrant an article, at least for the modern incarnation. That coverage is obviously less if the episode has not aired yet but it tends to be pretty instant and widespread once details are released. The problem here is that a one-man-band tries to fight the status quo via AFD. Why else would you nomminate an actor for deletion after he gets announced to have a (repeat) role in an episode that compared to other episodes has a heightened media interest. Agathoclea (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The block was quite poorly implemented. The immediate cause was grossly insufficient for the block. And "TT's history" does not support the block. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- This is clearly an example of a poorly defined editing restriction. There is no way of knowing whether TT AfD-ed an article for deletion knowing that it was a violation of the restriction. Similarly, there is no way of judging whether this was a good block or not without getting into the blocking editor's head. I agree with the suggestions above that TT be unblocked, and a clear restriction (can/cannot nominate Dr. Who related articles for deletion). I'd favor the cannot part, because there is plenty of stuff for a single editor to work on and it hardly matters that one particular editor is not permitted to nominate a particular set of articles for deletion. --regentspark (comment) 13:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree with TT on much, but I think I agree with most of the above people: this wasn't a well-formed editing restriction and could reasonably lead to confusion. A blanket topic ban is the most appropriate for this and will lead to a
moreless acrimoious editing environment. Can't find the policy, but shouldn't TT's editing restrictions need to be displayed at the top of his talk page? Buffs (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)- I would like to see one additional restriction imposed on AFDs - no interaction on or outside the AFD about keep/delete comments on that AFD. In fact I believe that regardless of the unblock conditions that were the ultimate reason for the block, if TT had not haggled on almost every keep-comment accross his ill-advised AFDs the issue would not have taken such proportions. A few keeps - a snowball close - nothing to see. The issue only raised its head through the combination of actions (and history). Agathoclea (talk) 13:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't make sense out of the restrictions. Ironically, it requires a "crystal ball" on the part of an editor to know what's going to be kept and what isn't. And the fact that others here have argued for deleting the article in question, raises questions about the appropriateness and validity of the restrictions on the user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that this requires a "crystal ball" on the part of an editor to know how the AfD will end up. But when TT decided to do a AfD, they voluntarily accepted that risk. Nobody forced TT to nominate it for deletion. That was their choice, their decision, their responsibility. TT could have simply decided not to do anything. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, except that if the article had been deleted, there would have been no violation, right? A restriction that depends on a unknown future outcome is not appropriate. If they don't want him nominating stuff for deletion, they should prohibit all nominations for deletion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that this requires a "crystal ball" on the part of an editor to know how the AfD will end up. But when TT decided to do a AfD, they voluntarily accepted that risk. Nobody forced TT to nominate it for deletion. That was their choice, their decision, their responsibility. TT could have simply decided not to do anything. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't make sense out of the restrictions. Ironically, it requires a "crystal ball" on the part of an editor to know what's going to be kept and what isn't. And the fact that others here have argued for deleting the article in question, raises questions about the appropriateness and validity of the restrictions on the user. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am highly leaning towards unblocking TT for exactly what Bugs said. Basing blocks off AFD discussions is petty and childish. If the discussion for some odd reason was delete we wouldn't be having this discussion. AfD was used exactly what it was intended for, a user wants to delete something, but knows it won't survive a CSD and won't survive a PROD. There shouldn't be any restriction on what could go to AfD (Some articles, namely FAs, will obviously be kept). Kwsn (Ni!) 14:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- To me, reading through this and some of the AFDs, the editing restriction on knowing how an AFD will end is completely infeasible, for reasons well stated.
- But, that doesn't mean there's a problem here. My read of what TT does with CSD/PROD/AFD is to throw it against a wall to see if it will stick. (The approach in the Copyright symbol AFD is clearly one example of this). AFD's should not be used as such grounds to gain consensus for something against the status quo, as, as we're seeing here, becomes disruptive. I realize that any AFD could be classified in the same manner, that it is a means to see if an article should stay around. The issue is that many of TT's AFDs are closed as kept, in some cases speedily. To me, this indicates that TT needs to engage in some type of discussions before launching an AFD, such as by posting "I plan to nominate this article for deletion within 7 days unless the following concerns are met" on the talk page. TT should then judicially use any resulting discussion and changes to determine if they go forward. If, if it were the case of the Copyright symbol, there would be a lot of resistance to the idea, and TT did continue to go forward, that would be likely a bad faith nom. I realize that with a show like Doctor Who you will have a dedicated editor base that will claim something is notable, and that talk page discussions won't break any stalemate created by this, and sometimes AFD is necessary to break that stalemate by garnering wider opinions. So basically, I would say that if TT posts such a message, gets significant discuss against going forward on the AFD, still goes through with the AFD, and the AFD is speedily kept, that's an issue to deal with. I don't know how exactly enforcable that is, as it becomes very touchy-feely. But I think there's something there that can be enforceable and implement blocks to prevent future disruption by TT for AFDs that otherwise serve no point beyond a testing ground. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I wonder if Buffs (above) meant a 'less acrimonious editing environment'? For my part, I don't agree with TT on everything. (I don't think I agree with anyone about everything, and would probably be worried to find someone who didn't disagree with ME about something...) If, as it appears, TT's nominating for deletion has become a problem in the world of Dr Who, I would go along with a topic based ban on nominating, but with a proviso that it should be possible for TT to ask an admin to nominate on his (I assume - could be her, I know not) behalf. This may be decided to be any admin, or one of a consensus decided small number (preferably not ones involved in previous blocking or controversy - must be some...). This would take care of anything TT spots that should be deleted, but with a filter. I would be sorry to lose TT, as amongst the controversy there is valuable editing. Peridon (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note that apart from the AfD that lead to this block, Agatoclea also highlighted a Dr. Who related Prod he made, which is if necessary an even clearer violation of his editing restriction. There is little doubt that he was willfully ignoring (or blatantly and unsuccesfully testing the limits of) the edit restriction. WRT the AfD of the upcoming Christmas Special: new rules, if needed, shiould be discussed elsewhere: for now we have to do with the rules we have (which allow such articles), the opinions of those commenting in the AfD (which were clear), and precedent like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who). Note that TreasuryTag actually !voted "strong keep" in the last one, including references to CRYSTAL and so on (that AfD started in July, not in September!). No idea why we he completely reversed his position in the past year, or why he would nominate an article that he could be fairly certain would end in an overwhelming keep. Fram (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've interacted with TT in the past, and have on repeated occasions noted how TT games the system in a 'if you don't do it my way, I'm taking the football stadium home with me' way. He has had sizable issues with civility and - judging from his block log - is not very good at taking a hint. I am a bit startled that he would violate the terms of his initial unblocking - he's seemed lever enough in the past to avoid doing something overt enough to get himself blocked. If he had questions about the nature of the restrictions, he should have asked.
- I don't particularly like the editor, but that's grown out of TT's incivility and edit-warring issues. That he's gaming the system yet again is no surprise to me. The initial block was too easy to ooze around, but the observation regarding the spirit of the unblock conditions was on target. TT knew what he was doing. And now, he's reaping what he sowed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think TT needs a mentor who will get them to dial back a few notches. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- If someone else wants to do that that's fine. Frankly given this action was in clear violation of the unblock conditions and wasn't even borderline it should be made clear that violations will lead directly to an indefinite block or an Arbcom case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think TT needs a mentor who will get them to dial back a few notches. North8000 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't particularly like the editor, but that's grown out of TT's incivility and edit-warring issues. That he's gaming the system yet again is no surprise to me. The initial block was too easy to ooze around, but the observation regarding the spirit of the unblock conditions was on target. TT knew what he was doing. And now, he's reaping what he sowed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I can't see strong consensus here for the indef to stick / a community ban. I'd be happy to mentor TT again, although my time onwiki is increasingly limited, but would be happier doing so if there was a well thought-through and collaborative process to determine some editing restrictions. I think AfD seems to be a flashpoint for this editor. I don't think AfD nominations are particularly disruptive per se, (they're certainly less so than bad speedy noms) I think it's more the bickering that can crop up in the debate which is objectionable. --Dweller (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Its a good block. For fucks sake guys how many chances do we need to give? Indefinitely looked fair enough last time it was given. Giving users twenty trillion chances is totally unproductive. I think I'll be taking the case to Arbcom if the block is reversed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not fond of that block: I think the editing restrictions wrt AfD weren't crystal clear. That said, the two prods are problematic (though the one self-reported and reverted I'm not too worried about). I'd say give a week block for the PROD with escalating blocks for repeat offenses (4 weeks, 3 months, year). Prevent all AfD nominations that are Dr. Who related just to clarify (or perhaps all of AfD). TT has lots of communication issues, but is still a net win for the project and I'm loath to toss him out over something like this. (Which reminds me, how is this any different than the editing restriction Delta is violating?) Hobit (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- The AfD he filed was clearly and blatantly in violation of the unblock conditions set at the beginning of September. End of story. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- With regards to Delta possibly he needs to be indefinitely blocked as well. Just because we haven't always followed our standards of behaviour doesn't mean we should continually fail to enforce them in future. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- The AfD he filed was clearly and blatantly in violation of the unblock conditions set at the beginning of September. End of story. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
I have reduced TT's block to one week, as he correctly pointed out in his last unblock request that violations of his unblock agreement would be dealt with by escalating blocks, starting at a week. Feel free to continue discussion on the merits of the block, vagueness of the terms, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- A bit of a technicality, but that seems reasonable. We should follow through with what we have said we will do. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- good catch! TT has a history of problems like the also mentioned delta. Both are still around and are not banned sofar. Both still contribute in a positive way to the pedia while causing drama in the process. If we can cut out the drama we are left with the positive. Agathoclea (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Cutting out the drama seems highly unlikely to occur. But I'm prepared to be proven wrong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- good catch! TT has a history of problems like the also mentioned delta. Both are still around and are not banned sofar. Both still contribute in a positive way to the pedia while causing drama in the process. If we can cut out the drama we are left with the positive. Agathoclea (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
There is much discussion above which is not actually relevant here. JamesBWatson hit the nail on the head when he wrote: "taking into account all the relevant history (including the unblock conditions, the user's previous 16 blocks, etc etc) would unblocking Treasury Tag again be beneficial to Wikipedia?" To that question the answer is very clearly "no". That, to my mind, is clearly the question here and the correct answer, not how many Dr. Whos can dance on the head of Mr. Spock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- In addition these edits to the page of a real-life director of Doctor Who, who made exactly one clarifying edit [1] removing 4 square brackets, crossed the line.[2][3][4][5] His responses to Newyorkbrad were problematic.[6] Mathsci (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think TT lucked out with only a week. That's ok. I would think that any next block, for disruption, edit warring or whatnot, should be much longer, say a month or two. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- The agreed editing restriction says that the next block should be for a month, I would agree that other behaviour warranting a block should be treated similarly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- The diffs pointed out by Mathsci are worrisome. It seems TT loses no opportunity to behave nastily as long he can remotely ascribe his actions to some obscure wiki rule. His argument for reinstating the unwarranted message is that it was a "notice" not a warning. He reinstated it three times [7] despite the disapproval of four other editors. I think that's called edit warring. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I think that an anti-bullying clause should be added to his block agreement. Egg Centric 14:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Having looked over a couple of situations, I'm concerned about TT's behavior - it seems to be a mixture of wikilawyering, WP:POINT violations, and a general waste of time. If he is allowed to edit again, I'd suggest to impose a complete ban on deletions, Dr. Who, and Wikiwonking. He is welcome to do some constructive main space edits, but should be strongly encouraged to avoid all references to Wikipedia policies. If a point cannot be argued on common sense, he should leave it to someone better equipped with patience and discretion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently serious steps forward cannot be suggested without being removed. Great. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I hate to be the one to break this to you Eraserhead, but you aren't an admin. When you butt in to issues that do not directly concern you, be it reverting a comment of mine made at VP Policy last week, or this giving unsolicited advice to Treasury Tag...it should come as no surprise that the reaction from those involved is swift and negative. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- With regards to not being an admin so what? Additionally "butting in" to discussions that don't concern you is actually useful as it gets outside opinions into discussions, which is useful as you get a different perspective.
- And the advice was hardly entirely unsolicited. It was quite clear that that sort of thing is useful in this case. If someone has been blocked 20 odd times and they want to stay a member of the community then they are clearly going to have to take advice from other users on how to improve their behaviour.
- In this particular case I see the point made by Giacomo and its a fair one, its clear that this time I expressed myself badly and it is clear that he doesn't want my advice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I hate to be the one to break this to you Eraserhead, but you aren't an admin. When you butt in to issues that do not directly concern you, be it reverting a comment of mine made at VP Policy last week, or this giving unsolicited advice to Treasury Tag...it should come as no surprise that the reaction from those involved is swift and negative. Tarc (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently serious steps forward cannot be suggested without being removed. Great. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Having looked over a couple of situations, I'm concerned about TT's behavior - it seems to be a mixture of wikilawyering, WP:POINT violations, and a general waste of time. If he is allowed to edit again, I'd suggest to impose a complete ban on deletions, Dr. Who, and Wikiwonking. He is welcome to do some constructive main space edits, but should be strongly encouraged to avoid all references to Wikipedia policies. If a point cannot be argued on common sense, he should leave it to someone better equipped with patience and discretion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I think that an anti-bullying clause should be added to his block agreement. Egg Centric 14:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh for Heaven's sake. I don't care for TT one little bit, but your comments were pompous and irrittating to read "The most effective teachers at my school..." "Well hurrah for your school, but Wikipedia's admins are not his teachers or even superiors and I would have deleted such patronising pomposity too. Giacomo Returned 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- So delete the first bit and leave the second. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well that would be tampering with your post - even worse than delelting it. I would just leave well alone, he clearly does not want your advice - so just accept it. Giacomo Returned 17:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I guess TT didn't like what I had to say about wikilawyering on his talk page. If he doesn't want to talk about it, that's ok. If he wants to keep unhappy things out of his archive pages, that's ok. I too would say, please leave him alone. TT knows he's skating and skirting on the canny edge. If other editors grow weary enough with all the time he wastes, mentored or otherwise, with these kerfluffles and he winds up blocked for a month or two or whatever next time, that's ok too. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- There have been several good points made by those who have observed TT's behavioral problems over the years. Especially Fram's pointing out his flip-flop voting on AFD's. I would add that this essay WP:NOTTHERAPY should be remembered now and in all future threads (two to six months is the usual lag) about TT's editing on this or other noticeboards. MarnetteD | Talk 21:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I guess TT didn't like what I had to say about wikilawyering on his talk page. If he doesn't want to talk about it, that's ok. If he wants to keep unhappy things out of his archive pages, that's ok. I too would say, please leave him alone. TT knows he's skating and skirting on the canny edge. If other editors grow weary enough with all the time he wastes, mentored or otherwise, with these kerfluffles and he winds up blocked for a month or two or whatever next time, that's ok too. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well that would be tampering with your post - even worse than delelting it. I would just leave well alone, he clearly does not want your advice - so just accept it. Giacomo Returned 17:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Tangential discussion
Per LadyOfShallot's suggestion I have started another discussion about the side issue of what to do with the types of entries TT was trying to delete. It can be found here - Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:CRYSTAL_and_TV_episodes_airing_at_a_future_date. Please post further comments about that issue there and not here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Topic ban proposal
- I have re-reviewed the discussion on TT's talk page. I am now of the opinion that TT is for inexplicable reasons unable to stop striking this particular deceased equine in a manner that provokes community backlash.
- To protect TT from that backlash and avoid the controversy becoming an ongoing sore point, I propose the following community sanction:
- TreasuryTag is topic banned by the Wikipedia community from article deletion of speculative fiction related articles, broadly construed. This restriction may be reviewed by the community at TT's request after not less than six months have passed since its enaction.
- Proposed - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, I'd actually prefer it the other way around. Taking him out of the Doctor Who arena might free up more of his time to do things like this. I'd rather him spend his time fighting against fancruft than against basic punctuation, to be honest. 28bytes (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'd prefer to see him completely banned from the entire deletion process with the SINGLE exception of BLPPRODS, and if he abuses that process he can be banned from it too, by any administrator, without discussion. Perhaps if he is prevented from working in AFD he can focus on improving content in other ways. It is my experience that partial bans only cause more drama. N419BH 01:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- You might do well to change "from article deletion of" to "from using the article deletion process for"; the current wording is awkward. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Erm, as I am trying to organise mentoring, I'd really prefer the waters I'm trying to settle aren't muddied by ban proposals at this point. If I fail to agree a mentoring proposal, or mentoring fails, fine, but really one of the points of mentoring is to ensure that community bans of any kind aren't necessary. --Dweller (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, let's give Dweller some breathing room to work with TT on a mentorship plan. There's no rush to do anything in the meantime, I doubt anyone's going to unblock TT prior to Monday when the block is scheduled to expire. 28bytes (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- This should also include a ban to interact on or off XFD about anybody else's !vote. Agathoclea (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- As per above I also see the need for a complete deletion topic ban as TT uses the deletion process to eliminate Dr Who actors that where notable for other work (Amonst others astarring role in a longlasting notable series) and it will be always the accidential "Sorry I did not realise it is a DrWho related subject". Agathoclea (talk) 09:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Defer to Dweller; too many cooks spoil the broth. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Somehow I missed Dweller's comments. Of course I don't want to stand in the way of a constructive solution. Agathoclea (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- If the proposed topic-ban pertains only to articles about fictional things that haven't yet come into fruition, then it is based on one single instance alone of (I would argue non-) disruptive behaviour – which seems a rather stupid basis for a topic-ban. But yeah, go for it, whatever. ╟─TreasuryTag►Osbert─╢ 09:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Speculative fiction": not works of fiction that still have to be released, but works of SF, fantasy, and related genres. Dr. Who is speculative fiction. Fram (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Have there actually been any problems involving Treasury Tag on articles about speculative fiction series other than Doctor Who? It looks to me like that's where the problem area is with him. Why not just go with a topic ban from all Doctor Who-related articles, broadly construed? Robofish (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Interaction with new editors ban proposal
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I suggest that TT not be permitted to interact with new editors, except where they solicited contact (I welcome definition of new editor - perhaps less than a thousand contributions, and also of contact solicition - but certainly incompetent editing should not on its own count as soliciting interaction) so as to prevent their being discouraged by frankly rather nasty remarks. Egg Centric 16:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
|
2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.
Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-blists.wikimedia.org.
Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.
The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 10 October 2011.
For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 14:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Merger of Isdud into Ashdod
Merge proposal of Isdud into Ashdod requires the attention of an uninvolved administrator to close a week-long discussion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Restored unresolved request from archive.
Future timestamp to prevent archiving.Cunard (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)- I had a look at the proposal; despite the fact the discussion stopped a week ago, there's no consensus there. Nothing has been decided. Despite using {{archive}} tags, I'm leaving the discussion open so those involved can continue to discuss the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, llywrch, for closing the proposal. Cunard (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would like to emphasize a mistake upon the closure, where i was counted as an "opposing" party without actually expressing a solid opinion (i proposed the merger), and if at all i'm supporting it strognly. Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I had a look at the proposal; despite the fact the discussion stopped a week ago, there's no consensus there. Nothing has been decided. Despite using {{archive}} tags, I'm leaving the discussion open so those involved can continue to discuss the matter. -- llywrch (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Another merger requires an uninvolved party
Merge proposal regarding "2005 Ahvaz unrest" requires the attention of an uninvolved administrator to close an outdated discussion. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Restored unresolved request from archive. Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Cunard (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
MascotGuy
We all know this guy is coming back again and again. However, it seems our appelation is feeding him and prompting him to modify his naming MO.
We have this individual's given name, and his e-mail (or his mother's email) at one point used as one of his usernames. Rather than using a name that he has never used himself, and instead seems to be giving him ideas on what to call himself, why should we not use that to refer to him? It doesn't seem he's at a high-functioning level, so it does not appear that publishing his name in a region of the project that isn't touched by the search engines will negatively affect him.
So should we keep his current "name", or use one that accurately identifies him, thereby denying his MO's existence?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- He may not care, but there are extremely serious consequences to revealing an individual's real name on the internet, Ryulong, even if it's in an area search engines can't touch. I am appalled that you would even suggest outing him and exposing him and his mother to needless harassment. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 21:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I concur with some of what Jéské said. I was wondering, when was the last time anyone saw him actually edit an article? Could we consider not blocking him when he does his account creation thing? We could also consider MfD on the LTA page, but I don't know how that would go down. There's definitely a DENY violation going on somewhere which isn't helping. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- The name is already online; see the link just above the "Articles" header at the LTA report. And we need to remember that DENY can easily be overused: it helps to know what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- You know, after seeing accounts like Attack of the Evil MascotGuy pop up, I somehow find it hard to believe that "all he really wants is to participate, like everyone else. He just doesnt understand how." I've spent most of my life surrounded by autistic people (and have PDD-NOS myself), and it's usually not hard to figure out what their intentions are. He pretty clearly tipped his hand with that and a few others. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- The name is already online; see the link just above the "Articles" header at the LTA report. And we need to remember that DENY can easily be overused: it helps to know what's going on. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think you may be reading too much into that name. He has used pop culture references before. I suspect that that particular account name was just a reference to "Attack of the Evil..." whatever along the lines of Attack of the 50 Foot Woman. Another pop culture inspired name would be the recent Mascot Patch Kids which references Cabbage Patch Kids. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough; now that you mention it, I did see Cloudy with a Chance of Mascots, so it's possible. The one that doesn't quite fit though is Dr. Powblock's BlockVision 5000, which doesn't seem likely to have been inspired from anywhere else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think you may be reading too much into that name. He has used pop culture references before. I suspect that that particular account name was just a reference to "Attack of the Evil..." whatever along the lines of Attack of the 50 Foot Woman. Another pop culture inspired name would be the recent Mascot Patch Kids which references Cabbage Patch Kids. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- It's always risky believing and repeating stuff you find on the Internet. DENY can be overused, and is frequently misused, but is frequently about recognising when someone is doing something only because they can be recognised doing it. The account creation thing is surely a sign of this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- @Jeske: He has already outed himself in one of his early accounts, as well on a link that we use on the LTA page. I am suggesting that we use a name that he cannot take on as his own and use in his ridiculous account naming sprees.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding how calling him by his real name is going to stop him from creating new accounts using variations on "Mascot Guy". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if not his real name, we need something that's not going to inspire him to make as his own. We obviously still need to be able to track him, but calling him "MascotGuy" is only encouraging him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- You kinda miss the point, Ryulong, everything will encourage him. Blocking his latest sock account is enough recognition to provide incentive for him to keep going, and yet we should still block everyone of them. It's fine. There's one of him, and lots of us, and it isn't a big deal. Revert, Block, Ignore, Rinse, Repeat. One needs to understand that there is literally nothing we can do to stop him, so its OK to just keep blocking him. I'm perfectly fine with that status quo. Either he gets bored and quits, or he doesn't and we block him again. C'est la guerre. --Jayron32 02:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, if not his real name, we need something that's not going to inspire him to make as his own. We obviously still need to be able to track him, but calling him "MascotGuy" is only encouraging him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding how calling him by his real name is going to stop him from creating new accounts using variations on "Mascot Guy". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Widely publicizing this individual's real name would, to the best of my knowledge, not actually be illegal, but it is against Wikipedia policy, there is no reason to think it would be effective anyway, and we are not going to do it. I haven't dealt with this situation before, but I assume that checkusers have been consulted concerning the possibility of reviewing potential rangeblocks without undue "collateral damage" against legitimate editors, and that his ISP-hopping precludes a successful ISP report? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Publicizing someone's real name is unacceptable for the same reason it is tempting. We should continue to err on being the sap rather than the tyrant.--Tznkai (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
@Brad: The person logs onto whatever computer is within a 5 foot radius from him and makes up new accounts. And if the MyFonts.com discussion is accurate, he shuts off his entire house's electricity to reset his modem to get a new IP. I'm personally not sure if anything has ever been done to contact his main Internet provider, but considering his supposed actions, it might not help. And he has at one point used an account that allegedly used his real name, and he even used it to edit WP:LTA/MG (it can be found during edits made in early 2009), so I doubt that it counts as WP:OUTING, unless being severely autistic means he has not voluntarily given up this information.
Regardless of what we can and cannot do, naming him "MascotGuy" is not helping anyone other than Mr. Chicken and Fries Guy come up with new names to register. Can we not call him the "San Diego-based animation vandal"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- MascotGuy has been at it for years. This isn't the first time that he has used MascotGuy in his account names. He's been doing that for years, too. See Gogo Dodo, the MascotGuy created by The Boxer Guy. Changing what we call him isn't really going to help matters nor stop him. Realistically, he is actually a very innocuous problem. He is very easy to spot and doesn't do any damage to Wikipedia beyond creating accounts as he no longer edits using the accounts. He seems happy to make the accounts and that's it. As Jayron said, just block, ignore, and move on to the next account. Is it getting tedious to do so? Sure. But is it worth expending a lot of time over? Not in my opinion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Other than a couple of anonymous accounts, do we actually have proof that this individual is autistic and not just a clever troll? Instead why aren't we contacting ISP abuse departments, or even the local police?--Crossmr (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- It would be a very elaborate troll to disrupt a font website and simultaneously be an annoyance on Wikipedia for what is probably six years, including producing what may be two other personas on the MyFonts.com discussion, just to get a sympathy card.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
As a general rule, publishing personal info should not be done. Even if it already hinted or even published somewhere, publicising it (say, writing it down in a widely known and used site as WP) is just about the same [if someone whispered a secret of his once in a public place, it does not allow you to go out screaming it out on the town's main square...]. Privacy and security is important (even more so in a time when it is neglected, by self included). I see no reason to break such a strong principle - Nabla (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- With all due respect Ryulong (and it may seem like I'm gunning for you, don't get me wrong, I'm not), outing him seems more like a result of a bitter grudge you have against him. I understand the annoyance he causes and such (and I'll admit, I was getting a little bit "process for the sake of process" yesterday with that AIV report), but no, just no. Lets not stoop down low shall we? Kwsn (Ni!) 14:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to say that consensus seems pretty clear on this - naming him is not a good idea, and I can't imagine it getting enough support. May I suggest we move on? The Cavalry (Message me) 15:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- I understand that using his (alleged) given name is not going to fly. I just think he needs to be renamed from "MascotGuy".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just a point I'd like to make, I think both sides are right about the "outing" thing. WP:OUTING is intended to protect the privacy of Wikipedia's editors, but posting information that the editors have already disclosed themselves in one form or another is not a violation. On the other hand, we don't use that as a bludgeon either. If it is useful to bring up that information, such as when identifying sockpuppet accounts or establishing a conflict of interest, it's allowed to do so. If you just mention a person's personal information as some form of intimidation or to otherwise dissuade someone from taking an objectional action, then in my opinion that's just morally wrong. -- Atama頭 18:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking of our good friend... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, let's just say for arguments sake, that you did get a consensus on changing what to refer him to (I don't think you have such a consensus). Do you really think not calling him MascotGuy is going to stop him? He isn't going to stop just because you don't call him MascotGuy. He doesn't always create accounts with Mascot or Guy in them. For example, Zig de Zag's Killers's list of accounts or Earthfighters's list of accounts. So having Mascot or Guy isn't his motivation. He is motivated by some other reason and the name isn't it. As I said before, this habit of his to use Mascot or Guy is really an odd benefit. Do you really want him to create random names that we can't pick out easily with the edit filter? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Just a point I'd like to make, I think both sides are right about the "outing" thing. WP:OUTING is intended to protect the privacy of Wikipedia's editors, but posting information that the editors have already disclosed themselves in one form or another is not a violation. On the other hand, we don't use that as a bludgeon either. If it is useful to bring up that information, such as when identifying sockpuppet accounts or establishing a conflict of interest, it's allowed to do so. If you just mention a person's personal information as some form of intimidation or to otherwise dissuade someone from taking an objectional action, then in my opinion that's just morally wrong. -- Atama頭 18:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
People who have participated in this discussion may be interested in this discussion/proposal as well. TNXMan 15:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- What if accounts were not allowed to create new accounts AND on the creation of any account, no new accounts can be created from that IP for an hour? This would prevent someone from logging out and creating new ones.--Crossmr (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Being "stalked" on Wikipedia
Some guy keeps following around my posts and reverts their significance for some reason I can't comprehend. I guess that's why ppl diss Wikipedia since any1 can just go around and revert edits without any reason. I know you probably shouldn't be allowed to make edits on something that is related to your birth since it might adhere to the POV clause (I am iroquois so I guess I shouldn't be allowed to edit the Iroquois article since I know many things about my people). Anyway, I made some improvements on the overall English parameters for some articles and she/he deletes them posthumously: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. InternetHero (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- You have not notified the other editor of this discussion, as is required on this page. And the other editor is explaining in edit summaries what their disagreements with you are about. But both of you need to discuss things on the articles' Talk pages. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Per your history of disruption(see their contribs and block log) when you pop up every few months, I do check your contribs history to see what POV you've decided to push lately and what disruption you've managed to add to the 'pedia. It is what our contrib histories are for. I do not revert all of your edits as you will notice, only the ones that are problematic. Follow our policies and I will no longer revert problematic edits.Heiro 22:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Being accused of sock/meat puppet with no solid evidence
When being accused, am I guilty and having to prove my innocence on Wikipedia? Or is it the other way around? Cause it sure feels like that here. I've done some research into an old group called Technocracy. It is pretty interesting to me, which is why I'm researching it still, but does that automatically portray me as a Meat or Sock puppet of someone else? I tried to meet middle ground on an edit war which occurred on the Technocracy Movement article. It was immediately reverted and I was accused of being a sock puppet and meat puppet of another user who was banned a few years ago. It also happened 7 months back when I was another user talk which you can see I expressed on my talk page....and from that user page you could find who I was when I didn't have an account. I think my edits were neutral and at the time seem non controversial. Until I kept on getting reverted and labeled a sock/meat puppet of the same user I mentioned earlier. I just want to know is this how wikipedia operates because it makes it very difficult to even contribute to something you seem lacking in encyclopedic material. That is why I started editing there. Because when I was researching the group and information related to Technocracy I found there was quite a bit of wrong information and even material that seemed very negative. Like calling the organization "fascistic" here [[17]]. I've even tried to talk about the issues on the talk board and still get zero responses from the editors who are reverting and accusing me. Googlesalot2 (talk) 07:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I also think it's weird how three editors are working in collusion against me. That seems like the strangest thing of all. I remember one editor named epipelagic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epipelagic who came from nowhere last time and accused me of the same thing. He never edited on the articles before when I was in conflict with user Johnfos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnfos 7 or so months ago. Now another user Larwencekhoo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawrencekhoo is now putting a tag of sock puppetry on my account. My edits ARE NOT EVEN NEGATIVE, POSITIVE, OR CONTROVERSIAL and I'm being labeled a sock puppet!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Googlesalot2 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your motives for editing here are the same as many of us: we Googled something that led us to WP and it was wrong, we realized we could influence that wrongness, and now we're here. But since Googlesalot (talk · contribs) is not blocked (and you admit this is also you), why would you feel the need to create Googlesalot2? You're probably not supposed to do that without an official name change. You explain on your page that it's because you like the number "2". That could sound like an odd reason to some people. Doc talk 07:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- There's nothing in the rules that says someone can't abandon an account and create a new one. People actually do that all the time. As long as the editor isn't evading a block/ban it should be fine. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Your motives for editing here are the same as many of us: we Googled something that led us to WP and it was wrong, we realized we could influence that wrongness, and now we're here. But since Googlesalot (talk · contribs) is not blocked (and you admit this is also you), why would you feel the need to create Googlesalot2? You're probably not supposed to do that without an official name change. You explain on your page that it's because you like the number "2". That could sound like an odd reason to some people. Doc talk 07:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I've actually lost my password a long time ago and didn't really bother to try and get it back mainly because of how I was treated previously when I was User: Googlesalot. I choose my current name to establish who I was and because 2 is actually my lucky number. When I registered this account about a week ago I was going to edit an article but just gave up, again, because of how I was treated the first time I came here. A week later I saw an article on the wall street journal http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572552998674340.html(discussing technocracy) and decided to check and see if the technocracy article was improved and low and behold, there was an edit war occurring. Googlesalot2 (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see what the editors who have been accusing you of sockpuppetry have to say, so I have notified them of this thread. 28bytes (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think some history is in order here. Some years ago we had two editors, acting in tandem, who strongly pushed a pro-technocracy POV on Wikipedia; the editors were Skipsievert (talk · contribs), who was indef blocked in November 2009 (see here) and AdenR (talk · contribs). In February 2011, we again had two pro-technocracy editors acting in tandem who engaged in disruptive POV pushing at Technocracy movement and Technocracy Incorporated; the editors were FidelDrumbo (talk · contribs) and Googlesalot (talk · contribs). And now we again have two pro-technocracy editors acting in tandem who have engaged in disruptive POV pushing at various Technocracy-related articles; the editors are FidelDrumbo (talk · contribs) and Googlesalot2 (talk · contribs). The pattern of editing is the same in each case, only the names are different. Johnfos (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- To read what Googlesalot2 has said above you would think that he is one of the best editors we have on WP, not a WP:SPA. G has said several times above that his edits are non-controversial, but that is far from the truth. Consider this edit. POV pushing is evident in that anything that may have portrayed the limitations of technocracy has simply been removed from the page. The statement that technocracy reached its peak in the early 1930s has been removed, and G generally portrays the technocracy movement as a vibrant going concern in 2011. Reliable sources have been removed. The edit summary does not adequately describe what has been done. As often happens, Googlesalot2, has directed any editors who disagree with what he has done to the Talk page; a better approach is to discuss controversial changes on the Talk page before they are made. Johnfos (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think that what has happened with the technocracy articles on WP is very sad. There are no doubt well-meaning people with a genuine interest in technocracy, and I respect that. And I wonder what they must think of what has gone on here. I wouldn’t be surprised if they think that the very acrimonious and public controversy which has been perpetuated here by just two editors is a terrible advertisement for the technocracy movement. Johnfos (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- To add to Johnfos's history, the background disruption extends well beyond technocracy articles into sustainability and economic areas. Lawrencekhoo (above) has experience with the disruption to economic articles. In the sustainability area, the massive disruption of Skipsievert and his later partnership with AdenR is apparent in these talk page archives. Skipsievert stymied progress on this particular article for over a year, co-opting AdenR as the pressure built. You can quickly get the flavour of this disruption by searching on Skipsievert in this archive. To get another perspective on just how destructive Skipsievert is to the project, here are some ANIs about him: [18][19][20][21] and here are some other postings to noticeboards: [22][23][24][25][26][27] As Johnfos points out above, FidelDrumbo/Googlesalot now operate on technocracy articles with the same MO as Skipsievert/AdenR. Skipsievert and FidelDrumbo both occasionally resort to IP edits when they want to do additional reverts, and the location of those IPs match. Googlesalot appears just in the nick of time when FidelDrumbo needs him, just as AdenR did, in a manner that cannot just be coincidence. That is why I referred to Googlesalot as a meatpuppet. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC) FidelDrumbo has just now reverted the Technocracy movement article back to his POV, with an edit comment typical of the way Skipsievert games the system. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't "tandem" edit or "POV" push. If I have, then by the same logic I can accuse you of the same thing. I've have talked on the talk pages and have actively tried to discuss issues on the talk pages. Lawrencekhoo, epipelagic, and you haven't done anything of the sort. You tandem edit with both editors in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Epipelagic and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawrencekhoo. You all revert to same disputed material. You even revert small edits when the wording of the material is changed to meet neutrality. Like this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technocracy_movement&diff=453158380&oldid=452957615.
- I've already had a talk with user Johnphos on the administrator board when I was accused of being a sock puppet. [[28]] That should be looked into for some history as well. I Want to continue the conversation from the past noticeboard material as it has some relevance here. User epipelagic came out of no where and started accusing me. He edited on the Technocracy movement article for the first time (twice) [[29]] [[30]] and then accused me of being a sockpuppet in the same day. [[31]].
- I honestly think these users are working together to obstruct progress on the technocracy articles. They obviously knew or where in contact with user:skip and now want to "get back" by POV pushing negative material in the Technocracy articles.
- I want to thank Johphos for actually trying to discuss the issues on the technocracy article. Thank you. Why can't you do that on the talk page? Here's a the quote in question.
- Technocracy's heyday lasted only from June 16, 1932, when the New York Times became the first influential press organ to report its activities, until January 13, 1933, when Scott, attempting to silence his critics, delivered a rambling, confusing, and uninspiring address on a well-publicized nationwide radio hookup
- I think the quote is fine except for the second part which is a bit strange to have. I'm guessing it's okay to put on the article since it is quoted material...but I thought any quoted material can be deleted if it is disputed? I'd be fine if it was written more neutrally and not a direct quote. Googlesalot2 (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Johnphos has an ax to grind as to controlling some articles connected to that subject. I am not connected to any former parties mentioned, my account is not.
- Apparently if anyone shows up on Wikipedia to edit the Technocracy related articles they have to put up with edit warring from Johnphos and his cohorts already mentioned by another editor here in a negative light as to their editing.
Looking at the history here it seems that Johphos does not like having a neutral presentation of the material on the Technocracy movement and the articles on the founding organization was repeatedly attempted by Johnphos to delete. The most notable group connected to Technocracy, he wanted to get rid of the article entirely. His arguments of those articles for deletion he created himself is telling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Technocracy_Incorporated ... it appears he is casting around for negative and non neutral edits on this subject.
- Looking at another player who reverts and edit wars there is a pattern of making as negative of an article on this subject as is possible.
Calling an organization fascist that is still around or editing to imply fascism is not accurate. The actual group was against fascism http://www.archive.org/details/GreatLakesTechnocrat-JulyAugust1947 but that information by some source keeps returning that they were a fascist group somehow. It is libelous maybe to a currently running group or at least not accurate at all to present it that way, not neutral.
- Simple things like saying 'demise' of something is reverted. Demise means death or of something being over, and as an historic organization from the 1930's that is still around again it is not accurate to say it demised itself in the 1930's but that is the edit that is being negatively done by Johnphos. Read this article by a government website about the current status of that group, scroll down to the Technocracy section in the social security government website, these are the kinds of links that Johnphos has taken off http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html
- Johnphos does not seem to care on neutral editing this material, to have articles controlled by little groups that want to slant things negatively and then accuse of socks and puppets and so forth when challenged, instead of making talk page discussion.
- Johnphos who claims to be retired mostly from editing is a constant watchdog of putting old and not accurate info back into this article and as said tried a couple of times to have other articles connected deleted and does not contribute on the talk page as the other two people he edits with also do not. Wikipedia is a joke in many ways when tiny editing parties try to control presentation and then claim those that differences are part of an editing plot. Mostly I have ignored his insults and accusations but was alerted on my talk page to come here.
- Looking at the history of Lawrence Khoo on these articles also being mentioned as a tandem editor with Johnphos it seems that he is a mainstream economist in the real world who also is enforcing negative edits and possibly is disgruntled by differing information from his published points of view. That seems pretty wrong if true and a problem with experts that try to control info on en. Wikipedia seems like a bad wrinkle and a non neutral trap. In other words its a competing system from his views and he seems to regard it with disdain and negative not accurate edits. Fidel Drumbo 04:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)
Plz delete for me
Hi, could an Admin please help me by deleting the redirect titled Lasker versus Bauer, Amsterdam, 1989? ("1989" was a typo, I've already added a new redirect w/ the correct "1889" in title.) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Page moves for User:Dolovis
I'm bringing this back up, as it slipped into archives without quite being resolved. Please see:
- [32] For the original page move ban for Dolovis in July.
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Page Move Ban for last week's discussion of possibly lifting the ban.
After a couple of comments to the effect that Dolovis should use RM and see how that goes, he replied indicating that he has been doing so. I replied as an RM regular, and we haven't had any problems with him. I asked about the circumstances of the ban, and Dolovis indicated that his attitudes and behavior regarding page moves, in particular those related to diacritics, are different. He agreed with me that when it comes to these things, it's better to skip the 'R' step of BRD, and that there is no such thing as an uncontroversial page move involving diacritics.
This is good enough for me. Nobody indicated that it's not good enough for them. Dolovis asked if I'd close the move, and while I was waiting to do so, the discussion was archived. Dolovis posted to my talk page, but there was a reply from User:Djsasso that he agreed with the objection raised by User:Mjroots. That objection was raised before Dolovis' explanation that satisfied me, and Mjroots never responded to Dolovis' assurances that he won't use page moves the way he did before. If nobody's even going to address these assurances, then I don't get what's going on.
I request that Dolovis be allowed to move pages again, conditional on keeping his word that he won't revert any page move, and that he won't treat any diacritic-related move as uncontroversial. If he doesn't stick to these conditions, then I fully support re-instituting the move ban.
Opinions? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- In particular, here is Mjroots comment: "Per the others above. Use WP:RM for now, once you can demonstrate that you are not going to cause disruption with page moves, the community will consider whether or not to lift the ban." I think that's been demonstrated. If that's not the case, then I think it's fair to ask concretely what it would take to make such a demonstration. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- If I'm interpreting the above correctly, Dolovis has indicated that he'll use WP:RM for any diacritic-related moves... is that correct? 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- That's my impression, and it's the reason I support lifting the ban. If there's a page-move mess, I'm likely to be one of the janitors cleaning it up, and his statements reassure me that I don't have to worry about that.
Yes, I just explicitly volunteered to help clean up any mess that may result from this, and I'd say in general that I'm available for help with any situation involving page moves. Feel free to tug on my sleeve anytime. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's my impression, and it's the reason I support lifting the ban. If there's a page-move mess, I'm likely to be one of the janitors cleaning it up, and his statements reassure me that I don't have to worry about that.
- If I'm interpreting the above correctly, Dolovis has indicated that he'll use WP:RM for any diacritic-related moves... is that correct? 28bytes (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well its only been just over two months and he has made very few requests in that time. Now I fully realize not many moves happen very often. But the source of his issues were mostly moving ice hockey player pages (with diacritics specifically). Since the last two months were the summer outside of hockey season the likelihood of him making ice hockey player moves were next to zero. I think it would take a bigger body of work to judge than the 4 move requests he showed in the earlier discussion. That being said he has so far stopped his double edits to prevent others from moving over top of redirects so it does look like he is moving in the right direction. -DJSasso (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see the point. We'll keep an eye on his page moves. Does he have to find a bunch of pages to nominate for moving to get out from under the gun? This isn't grade-school. Let me be a... cosigner for him. If he screws up, I'll take partial responsibility. Does that help? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well its only been just over two months and he has made very few requests in that time. Now I fully realize not many moves happen very often. But the source of his issues were mostly moving ice hockey player pages (with diacritics specifically). Since the last two months were the summer outside of hockey season the likelihood of him making ice hockey player moves were next to zero. I think it would take a bigger body of work to judge than the 4 move requests he showed in the earlier discussion. That being said he has so far stopped his double edits to prevent others from moving over top of redirects so it does look like he is moving in the right direction. -DJSasso (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- I believe that Dolovis has improved since the page-move ban was imposed. However, if the ban is to be lifted, I'd like an assurance and understanding from Dolovis that he can't just move pages, regardless of whether he believes he is in the right or not. I'm not convinced that a complete page-move ban is preventative, but he should stay away from moving diacritics articles. He should at least be allowed to perform moves that simply correct any typo errors. GTBacchus, in the future, remember to notify the parties when starting a noticeboard discussion. HeyMid (contribs) 22:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- The purpose of any such ban is to limit or eliminate disruption caused. If Dolovis is agreeing that his diacritic page moves and double edits to redirects so as to prevent non-administrator intervention were disruptive and that he will not resume the same pattern of editing, then the restriction is no longer required. It can, of course, be easily reinstated if old behaviours resurface. Resolute 03:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm happy with that. Dolovis to use RM for moves involving diacritics, but is otherwise free to move articles - a relaxation of the ban rather than it ending. Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah as long as he understands that if the same issues surface the ban will end up right back I have no problem with relaxing it. I just wanted to make sure it was clear is all. He has in the past when he got stopped from doing one thing found another way to create the same problems but in a different venue so his assurances don't hold as much weight as they might another editor. An example was the issue Sporti brought up in the last discussion. Or when he was creating redirects with two edits so he could prevent others from moving articles. While separate issues they all revolve around the same problem. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
As was accurately described by GTBacchus, I agree that there is no such thing as an uncontroversial page move involving diacritics. What was the catalyst of the attention I received was my bringing attention to that fact by invoking WP:BRD. I trust that all other involved editors are now in agreement, and that in the future all editors will use RM for moves involving diacritics. Dolovis (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Complex RM at Talk:Tree shaping#Requested move 2
Hi, we could really use another admin's opinion here. There is an RM which has been running for six weeks without a close. Of the three admins that have looked at it, one closed it as "no consensus", then changed their mind and re-opened it. Two other admins participating in the discussion have differing opinions. So we're at the point where now we're having trouble finding a consensus among administrators, on whether there's an RM consensus... So we could really use another opinion or two, thanks! --Elonka 06:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- At first sight this may seem like a trivial dispute between competing names for an obscure art. For that reason I would really hope that we can find an admin (or several) who is willing to invest some time in understanding what this dispute is all about rather than just doing a 'drive-by' close. To do this will require taking time to understand the arguments put by the various participants and the checking the quality of the cited sources and what they actually say actually say. It is not an exceptionally arduous task but in my opinion it needs doing to get to the bottom of the dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- That article is under ArbCom restrictions. I doubt there is anything simple about it. Rmhermen (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but in the hope of attracting some uninvolved admins, I will mention that the Arbcom case was a very minor matter (by Arbcom standards). It was needed only because there are two editors with a commercial interest in the name of the article, and certain limited topic bans were established. There is no drama. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I was taken by Martin Hogbin to have my partial topic ban (could talk by not edit Tree shaping or related articles) to become a complete ban on this subject. The result was my ban was changed to a very narrow ban, and I am now allowed to edit the subject. Unfortunately due to issues in real life Arbcom didn't look at the evidence against filing editors behavior. So no the RM is not just a simple case. Blackash have a chat 03:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but in the hope of attracting some uninvolved admins, I will mention that the Arbcom case was a very minor matter (by Arbcom standards). It was needed only because there are two editors with a commercial interest in the name of the article, and certain limited topic bans were established. There is no drama. Johnuniq (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- That article is under ArbCom restrictions. I doubt there is anything simple about it. Rmhermen (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
High resolution download
I need someone with higher than 1200 pixel wide resolution to download the map at Openstreetmap.org so I can produce a slightly better version of File:Lincoln Park borders.jpg with the hook that I am currently chopping off.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Would an admin close and summarize Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#OTRS member group? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Andy4190
I request to give this user a strong warning (assume good faith), as he already many article with hoax information and deleted. If assume good faith, which assume him obtained information from the web, which wrongly using rubbish information from transfermarketweb but not from himself. If assume him a vandal, please just block him.
The most recent hoax is Afonso Carson and newly discovered hoax is Adriano Quintão (see WP:footy for why it is a hoax, the first version his created is a hoax (his hoax French career) and someone edited the page but still hoax (his hoax Asia, Croatia and Italy career)), which created 2 years ago. Matthew_hk tc 09:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- yet Estanilau Li's content seems hoax. Matthew_hk tc 09:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- yes it should be ANI. Matthew_hk tc 11:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Images of concern
I am brining the following matter to the administrators attention, Category:Incomplete file renaming requests seems to contains some images with filenames that suggest that they might be need to checked to see if they've been used in recent vandalism.
Also where would be the best place to make a technical suggestion, namely that images tagged as {{badimage}} don't thumbnail on file description pages, or in Special:Filelist? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Would you mind giving some examples? Generally speaking if it's been used for the type of vandalism that would earn it a place in the bad image list, then someone would have already added it to the list. The purpose of the badimage list, or to give it its modern name the restricted use list, is not to prevent them showing on their description pages, or the list of all images, in categories, in relevant articles, or in any other place you might expect to find them. It's mainly to prevent them showing up on the Main Page, in the infobox of BLPs, or in widely used templates. However Bugzilla would be the place to go to change how the extension works, if so inclined. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- The two images concerned have a title of Glans penis.jpg, and Glans Penis.jpg both of which are from their title NSFW.
- In relation to the second point, can you provide more technical details on which extension handles the 'restricted use list'
so that I'm able to fill out the Bugzilla request as fully as possible. Thanks :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- It appears to be within MediaWiki core itself. If you say "bad image list" everyone will know what you mean. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The protection policy is transcluding onto 2003 Russian Premier League Cup, but I can't find the template. L888Y5 (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's Template:Deleted, which shouldn't be so used in the mainspace. Remove those, and your problems should vanish. Courcelles 23:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Second opinion on RM closure
Hi. Could someone take a look at the RM close I did at Talk:Sega_Genesis_and_Mega_Drive#Requested_move? See also the discussion here. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 14:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's a good close, for my money. I've been thinking of doing it, and I would have made the same call you did. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 21#Raymond A. Watson and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 22#Red link
Would an admin (or admins) close Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 21#Raymond A. Watson and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September 22#Red link? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare got one, I got the other. Courcelles 23:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you both for closing the DRVs. Courcelles, would you link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination) in your DRV close? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Theres's a bit of a backup at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose you mean "backlog"? →Σ ⚑ ☭ 04:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, though it is backed up, too. :) The Mark of the Beast (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Can an uninvolved admin like to have a look at this with a view to closing it, as someone who supported extending the ban, it is clear that there is no consensus for that and keeping it open is unlikely to change that. Mtking (edits) 08:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)