Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu
(Initiated 19 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?
(Initiated 73 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
new closer needed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League
(Initiated 51 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 50 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)
(Initiated 49 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead
(Initiated 47 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?
(Initiated 37 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"
- In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.
- I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".
- I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.
- The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails
(Initiated 33 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 15 | 24 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 23 | 27 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 31 |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States
(Initiated 51 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words
(Initiated 22 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh
(Initiated 21 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD
(Initiated 41 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles
(Initiated 27 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles
(Initiated 25 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal
(Initiated 24 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests
(Initiated 18 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
(to admins) When reverting someone's contribution is a bad form
Honestly, I've been to wikipedia for a long time, and don't even bother looking up this account's creation date. I have known it a long time, I talked, I read a lot of wiki-related stuff. I noticed that some experienced editors have a bad habit of being in a rush to revert someone's edit, whether he's a newbie or not, really? No, I understand when reverting someone's edit makes sense.
But lemme give you an example, so we'll have a specific case to weigh an opinion upon. As you can see, inclusion of a low-budget movie, due to the limited scope of the footage (you don't need a lot of money when majority of the movie takes place in tiny and closed premises), doesn't mean the movie doesn't deserve to be in the article. As a zombie-movie fan, I'd have liked it, if there was a source that would provide with the list of all zombie movies, with as much info as possible, so as to let me be my own judge regarding the interestingness of a particular zombie movie. But instead, in this case, we see (doesn't really matter who, there are a lot of editors who do the same thing he does anyway) that a typical editor, who sees no wrong in what he's about to do, reverts my contribution (note: not just an edit, but a contribution!) to the article. With a reason that there's only imdb source for it. Since when having imdb isn't enough?
Besides, instead of wasting time on unnecessary reverting, such a typical capricious editor can simply look for it himself and then add it to the entry, thus turning into a productive editor, instead of being a capricious one, whose revert is discouraging the other editor (me) from further contribution to the article. Such reverting puts off a lot of editors from adding new information into articles, because there are such experienced editors who think too high of themselves and bestow upon themselves the right to revert a contribution right away, without realizing that it would be much better for the article to have it, rather than not. Wikipedia is for everyone, so let's ask the majority of potential readers of the said article - fans of zombie movies - would they rather have an article that would NOT skip a single zombie movie (but which would attempt to include information of budget and low general rating) or to have an article which would be overseen by capricious editors who will decide which movies should be added, over-exemplifying wp reliable-source rules, instead of working case on case basis? I personally would prefer the first. I don't care if some experienced editor thinks that this movie was only added with an imdb source, because I'd rather not skip a possible zombie movie I might even slightly enjoy watching.
tl;dr "oh, I'll revert this edit, because it fails X rule, and it's the other editor's problem to make sure he complies with the rules if he wants this movie to be in my article". I hope you guys see through this commentary and understand that simply reverting edits isn't always right, and such "all-knowing" capricious behavior of many experienced editors makes it "sucky" for other editors. It's like when you try to build something off a sand on a private beach, and then the owner comes along and ruins your work before it's even finished because according to the owner you broke one of the rules while building whatever it is you were trying to build. Of course after this you just wanna say: "screw this, I'm washing my hands of this beach, why don't you play yourself in your own sand then, you jerk... and then walk away". inb4 expected replies: "we should follow the rules ... bla-bla, shouldn't be exceptions... bla-bla, it's your responsibility to take care of the aforementioned movie, if you don't take it, then don't expect the movie to be in the article. bla-bla, stop whining and do edits, we don't care how many are put off by such reverts, everyone should be energetic like us, and always put all efforts into trying to add even a minor entry etc etc" yeah yeah I know it all already, don't bother, it's sad that you failed to get my message.
What would have I done if I were in the shoes of that other editor who reverted my edit? Well, firstly, if I saw that the movie isn't bogus or a complete trash, I wouldn't be quick to delete it, but rather would have given it a chance to be in the article. Secondly, before doing an unnecessary revert (I fail to see how inclusion of this movie harmed the article) I'd have talked to the editor who added it, as to tell him find another reliable source, or tell him that otherwise the movie has no place in the article, and if he doesn't agree, then I'd bring it up on the article's talkpage to see other people's opinion regarding the matter. // (I already know what you're gonna say: "experienced editors don't want to put so much effort into trying to save someone's edit, I understand that, but speaking within the current context, such efforts would've made sense")
There's always a time to delete, but if you see, that an instant deletion (revering an edit) isn't necessary, why not let more entries to be in the article? When in doubt, I think it's better to have more movies listed than fewer, in this case at least. Pessimist2006 (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- To summarise this is a dispute over what films are notable enough to be in List of zombie films. Doesn't look like a case for WP:ANI, especially as you've not really attempted to use the WP:TALK page to address the issue. You're also supposed to inform users when you raise issues here. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 05:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you've read and remembered what you've read, then you'd know why I didn't inform that other editor who reverted my edit in the example provided. It's not really about him, but rather about a general, bad trend amongst experienced editors. In fact, I'd have preferred if that other editor wasn't invited here. I never even mentioned his name, it was never about him, just leave him out of it. Pessimist2006 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- As the editor in question, I reverted the entry in good faith because it was referenced only by IMDB (see WP:RS/IMDB) and it was a redline, as per the discussion on the talk pages. I'm sorry if that offended you. Please don't take it personally. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is (unfortunately) simple: the only things that should ever exist on a "List of..." article should be links to other Wikipedia articles. We don't do redlinks, off-wiki links, or even unlinked entries on List of... pages. List of... pages are an index to Wikiepdia topics of sorts. If the topic isn't sufficiently notable to have its own article (yet) then it doesn't go onto a List of... index (yet). That's SOP on Wikipedia the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Um, that's not exactly true. There are three types of list, per WP:CSC. We have lists that are made up of things that are notable (or could be notable) enough to have their own pages, but we also have lists where a majority of the items are unlinked entries completely unlikely to ever have their own articles. (examples can be found Category:Lists of sitcom television characters and the unlikely-to-be-deleted List of Starfleet starships ordered by class or List of Knights Templar. (It is a bit strange as it seems to suggest that if we ever had a list that started as a collection of items without articles, that we should delete it if it ever became half bluelinks, then create it again when it was mostly bluelinks.) And sometimes we do redlinks per
Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Um, that's not exactly true. There are three types of list, per WP:CSC. We have lists that are made up of things that are notable (or could be notable) enough to have their own pages, but we also have lists where a majority of the items are unlinked entries completely unlikely to ever have their own articles. (examples can be found Category:Lists of sitcom television characters and the unlikely-to-be-deleted List of Starfleet starships ordered by class or List of Knights Templar. (It is a bit strange as it seems to suggest that if we ever had a list that started as a collection of items without articles, that we should delete it if it ever became half bluelinks, then create it again when it was mostly bluelinks.) And sometimes we do redlinks per
- But isn't it just sad? I dunno what the correct term would be here, but since this specific article is deemed to attract specific people, like fans of zombie movies. There's bound to be less enthusiastic editors, I mean, it's just a list of movies after all. So, when you have few caring people regarding a certain article, it'll unfortunately be greatly influenced by those few editors. Same thing here, someone decided that only the movies that have their own articles on wiki deserve to be in the article, and now it's a rule of thumb. It's like with public sand beach, it's nobody's, so no one, but few die-hard fans will care what business going on in this sand beach, others will just come and go, if it's not there, they will go other place. No big deal.
- You know, I'd have understood, if the few people that enforce their rules in this article, would also care enough to bother with creating articles for films that haven't yet gotten articles. But it's not the case, they just do what is easy and ... actually a bad thing, if instead of enforcing unnecessary rules they'd have focused their energy into adding as many information to as many listed movies as possible, that would've been kind of better.
- Besides, the current rule that says that only the movies that have their own articles should be listed in the zombie article is going to deplete potential readers / the article itself from inclusion of good, but limited films. For instance, there's been a well accepted (by general public) tv-series about zombies, it hasn't been released to international scene en masse, but it's a decent, local film (or short tv-series, whatever), which has been mostly watched in the UK. However, since it's made by popular companies and popular names are involved, it's pretty notable. But what if some obscure company made it? Like in the aforementioned case, also a decent movie, according to stats, now that movie has no place in the article because it doesn't have an article? Just what kind of filtering is this. Whom does it please? Would it please majority of potential readers of the zombie article, in this case? Wouldn't majority would rather have this low budget movie listed than not? I don't understand who would agree to have someone else decide what is best for you and what you shouldn't see, based on an obscure rule. In other words, often there are good movies that haven't had much publicity, and it would be a shame if they will be out of picture because they weren't "notable" enough to have their own article. Pessimist2006 (talk) 20:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- The article is now created and with refs so that movie is in the list now. :) -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a bit offended that you're calling me capricious, and ignoring the extensive referencing I've done on the hundreds of entries for that list so that they meet WP:RS. Anyway, the inclusion criteria of whether movies get listed has been discussed on the talk page, and the list of low-budget zombie films has been proposed to merge to the main list, while the short-films and anthologies are split off to the third article. Going forward, if there are plans to develop the new article based on the movie, please say so. We're more than happy to help with that process. You can see on the talk page of ones that we're having a hard time finding to be notable and the queue of films that are notable but just need that article. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- This is true. AngusWOOF has performed massive work on the list, and I think it's horribly unfair to characterize any of his edits as capricious. I agree that the main article, list of zombie films, should include low-budget, non-mainstream films. Although the merge proposal stalled months ago, both Angus and I have worked hard to include these films in the main article. However, consensus is that the list is to be an index of Wikipedia articles, not an indiscriminate list of interesting films. The issue here is not that any editor is trying to block the addition of a film but that the film temporarily failed the list criteria. Once the article was created and a citation was found, the film was added. Unless there are outstanding issues that I've missed, I think the situation has basically resolved itself. Issues with WP:NFILM should probably be directed to WT:FILM or WT:Notability (films). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Two articles violated the Wikipedia's Guidelines and nominated for deletion
The following two article: M Capital Group and Sílvio Antônio violated the guidelines of Wikipedia therefore it has successfully met the criteria for speedy deletion, I request you to delete those two page immediately for violating the Wikipedia's Guidelines. --PrinceSulaiman (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- You do not need to post requests for speedy deletion here, they all come up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and admins regularly review that category and take care of them as appropriate. GB fan 13:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @PrinceSulaiman: There's no need to list articles here. Admins will process all tagged articles in due time. However I have removed the tag from Sílvio Antônio as he seems to meet WP:NFOOTY. --NeilN talk to me 13:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi GB fan, Thanks for heads up, It has been long time now. @NeilN: Sílvio Antônio isn't footballer that user created the article without providing reliable source neither that person is notable footballer. I request you to delete it since it violating the guidelines and already met the criteria for speedy deletion. — PrinceSulaiman (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- @PrinceSulaiman: CSD A7 says nothing about sources, only if significance has been credibly asserted. In my opinion the stub has, through the infobox. I've asked the creator for a source but you may tag the article with a {{subst:prod blp}} if you wish. --NeilN talk to me 13:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is no timeline when they will be deleted. There is no need to delete these immediately. GB fan 13:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- NeilN, Hmm that looks much better, I'll add that tag, @GB fan:, Ah alright then, Then it doesn't mean to be speedy deletion? — PrinceSulaiman (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy is relative to the other deletion processes. WP:PROD and WP:AFD are both 7 day processes. Speedy deletion is usually less than 1 day, therefore speedy. GB fan 13:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- GB fan, Thank you for the processing day(s), I'll keep in mind :) — PrinceSulaiman (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll point out that articles that seem to be attack pages are often deleted much faster than others, because there is urgency to delete such pages to prevent actual harm to people. Pages like that show up differently on the admin dashboard (they'll show up in red, and when I'm checking out that page I attend to them first). Others aren't generally so urgent. -- Atama頭 21:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- GB fan, Thank you for the processing day(s), I'll keep in mind :) — PrinceSulaiman (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy is relative to the other deletion processes. WP:PROD and WP:AFD are both 7 day processes. Speedy deletion is usually less than 1 day, therefore speedy. GB fan 13:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- NeilN, Hmm that looks much better, I'll add that tag, @GB fan:, Ah alright then, Then it doesn't mean to be speedy deletion? — PrinceSulaiman (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hi GB fan, Thanks for heads up, It has been long time now. @NeilN: Sílvio Antônio isn't footballer that user created the article without providing reliable source neither that person is notable footballer. I request you to delete it since it violating the guidelines and already met the criteria for speedy deletion. — PrinceSulaiman (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Edit filter?
Can anything be done to counter the recurring vandalism at Talk:2011 AFL season, ie. an edit filter? It is getting quite tiresome and I don't think indef semi would be appropriate for the talk page. Connormah (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Semi'd by Fluffernutter for a year. Edit filters work best for issues that arise in a formulaic fashion. Mike V • Talk 00:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete My account and my personal page please
Dears While my work as one of the US agents remains classified, (while I had lots of problems and I had a hard time during writing the articles) so I will confront with some kind of security complaints and threatening problems if my account remain here so I ask you to delete my account and all of what is remained here inside of the encyclopedia please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peyman_Ghasemi
Peyman Ghasemi (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think you should exercise your Right to Vanish.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Eaglestorm is correct. We can't delete accounts, but Right to Vanish is the next best thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- And I did a courtesy blank of the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Uncontroversial move
Can someone G6 WZTK please? WATZ (AM) just moved to that callsign this week and I'd like the page moved. I'm asking here because every time I tag a G6, it sits untouched for days. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:RM (technical moves) also works for this. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Copied first two posts from Archive262
Last couple edits (by an IP address) seem like a personal vendetta against the article subject. Some of the recently-added material is readded stuff I tried to delete before. Not sure what you guys want to do about this but I'm not interested in a slow war with an IP, so your participation would be welcome. Townlake (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Two edits (in a row) by a single IP, 4 days ago, with minor to moderate WP:NPOV issues. I'm not sure this is the beginning of a "slow war." Don't forget to assume good faith. —Lucas Thoms, formerly My Ubuntu (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's discouraging to get an AGF scolding under these circumstances, dude. As I predicted, the IP came back and reinserted all their POV stuff, still unsourced. I'm sure not going to keep reporting stuff like this if I'm just going to get dinked to "assume good faith" about POV warriors. Townlake (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Blocks here are to prevent immediate damage, and with no edits by an IP for days, it won't happen. If you feel the article needs protection, then there's a place for that the panda ₯’ 08:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- "Now that you've filled out form WP-123, go fill out form WP-456 in the protection office on the fourth floor. But before you file that police report, are you sure you've assumed good faith about the guy you're reporting?" You guys know why good volunteers stop contributing their editorial energy to Wikipedia, right? Townlake (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Any admin who blocked an IP that hasn't edited for days would be violating their admin rights. At the top of the page is a set of links to the right places to ask for action - even at this point, WP:RFPP would be declined as it's not performing current protection. Timing is everything, sorry to say. We're janitors, not police or judges the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I appreciate your civil tone in your replies. I note in passing that the "janitor" analogy doesn't reflect the true power admins here possess. Janitors don't have the power to ban entrants from participating in activities, policemen do. Alas, too many of the police here prefer to sit on their hands and claim to be janitors. And the project suffers. In fact, I am here as an actual janitor, trying to clean an article to Wikipedia standards and attempting to report mistreatment of project property to the police. The fact I'm getting nowhere is no individual's fault; it reflects a problem with the project's more general attitude toward adminship. Townlake (talk) 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are we sure a current editor can really have much of a personal vendetta against someone who died 64 years ago? I've seen vendettas against people who died 30+ years ago, but not many on Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Some still idealise the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, and they tend to have vendettas against Abraham Lincoln. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- There was also a recent report about an editor who had a personal vendetta against Jefferson Davis. The American Civil War was 150 years ago, but continues to inflame passions on both sides. More generally, the history of race relations in the United States continues to inflame passions. As William Faulkner said: "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past." Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Close 4-month RfD Cita_web
The Template:Cita_web is/was a full template to auto-translate Spanish or Italian cite parameters into English {{cite_web}}, but it is being re-reverted into a redirect to re-rehash the old discussion:
Template:Nb10• WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_5#Template:Cita_web
As the RfD discussion continues into the 4th month (restarted 3 times), I need an experienced admin to close the "redirect" as no consensus to delete, and I can restore the full template, where any features should be discussed at Template_talk:Cita_web. Some people have been confused by the current redirect, as if the full, functional template does not exist (but it does/did), and the full template is not "hypothetical" but actually works (see: Template:Cita_web/sandbox). Dragging this RfD out for 4 months (from mid-April 2014) is massive disruption to delay improvements. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Second look request
Could an editor review my close at Talk:Yelp#Controversies? (Please see User_talk:NE_Ent#yelp.) I'm currently engaged in something called real life and lack wiki time to respond myself. NE Ent 01:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's been long enough that another RfC could be made without too much controversy. If an editor balks at the idea, someone could go in and reset the original close to "no consensus", which seems perfectly legitimate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Requesting review of editor conduct
- I'd like a few extra opinions as to the conduct of myself, RGloucester (talk · contribs), and the administrator known as Q5W5 (talk · contribs). Today, at the page 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine, of which I have been a prolific editor, a relatively new user called Stephen B at USDA (talk · contribs) initiated a page move to 2014 pro–Russian unrest in Ukraine with this edit. He did the same at the timeline article, Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. I reverted his page moves with this edit[1], as there is currently an ongoing requested move discussion about the title of these articles at Talk:2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. I shall note, I am a strong advocate of the "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" title, and in fact, my bold page move to restore the article to that title is what initiatde the present requested move discussion. I have no interest in maintaining the present title for various reason that are best left for the move discussion. However, I do not think it is appropriate to overwrite an ongoing requested move discussion, as I'm sure most people agree. Furthermore, Stephen B introduced an orthographical error into the title, moving it to 2014 pro–Russian unrest in Ukraine with a dash, rather than with the appropriate hyphen (2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine). Minutes later, Stephen B once again moved the pages to 2014 pro–Russian unrest in Ukraine. Another editor, Knowledgekid87 (talk · contribs), reverted these moves. I only made one revert of Stephen Bs bold page moves.
- Minutes later, I received an edit warring template on my talk page[2], placed by the administrator Q5W5, who has been participating in the present move discussion. I immediately requested clarification from the administrator, as I had not participated in any edit war. I made ONE revert of a bold page move during a move discussion. The administrator responded with this edit[3]:
So you are saying that and other substantially identical edits made within the last fifteen minutes were not made by you? You are not exactly giving yourself a good reputation by continuously reverting constructive contributions and then lying that you did not do it. Edit histories do not lie, so we can figure it out fairly quickly. Do you have an answer for these things, RGloucester?
- Anyone that actually looked at the edit history would know that I was not reverting any constructive contributions, and that I only made one revert of a bold page move. The aggressive tone of the administrator in question shook me up, as I take allegations of wrongdoing seriously. I replied, explaining to him what actually happened.[4] The administrator replied, saying that he was mistaken with regard to "edit warring", but that my revert was "extreme".[5] I do not consider one revert of a bold page move during a currently ongoing move discussion as "extreme". The administrator in question then attempted to put words in my mouth, saying:[6]
Edits are NOT vandalism if the person is unaware that they are wrong. Despite it being clear that he was acting in good faith, you took it upon yourself to blatantly revert his edit, referring to it as "disruptive", while making absolutely no friendly attempt to educate him about how Wikipedia works. Besides, you said yourself that you support this move. Disagreeing over two equally good titles and reverting a blatantly inaccurate one (as Stephen B at USDA did) are two completely different things. Q5W5 [discussion] 22:06, Today (UTC−4)
- I never said the editor in question was a "vandal", and in fact, if one looks at his talk page, one will note that I was having a discussion with him about why the move was inappropriate, and that I was in fact attempting to "educate" him in a civil manner. However, despite explaining this, Q5W5 was not sated. He responded to my continued explanations with the following remarks:[7]
I have said myself on the article's talk page that the title is wrong and so have a slew of other editors. This is not about two good titles in dispute; it is about fixing a blatantly incorrect title. I support Stephen B at USDA's right to change it, especially as a newcomer. If you disagree, you should educate him on why you believe he was wrong, not restoring by restoring incorrect titles, which is borderline vandalism. Q5W5 [discussion] 22:22, Today (UTC−4)
- I agree that the title is wrong, as I tried to explain to the administrator here. However, it has been stable at that title for a month, until a bold page move by me triggered the current RM. It was agreed upon by discussion, and did not appear out of thin air. Instead, we have an administrator pushing a POV (one I happened to agree with, by the way) about "accurate" and "inaccurate" titles, and calling ME a VANDAL for my ONE REVERT of a BOLD PAGE MOVE during an ongoing REQUESTED MOVE DISCUSSION. I do not understand why I deserve to be bullied and attacked by an administrator for things I did not do. Please read my talk page, the talk page of Stephen B, and review my edits, and those of the administrator. Please tell me why it was okay for this administrator to functionally bully me for no reason. I was accused of "biting newcomers", but in reality, I'm the one being bitten here, and I can't understand why. Now my talk page is sullied with accusations that are false, and there is nothing I can do about it. I value my integrity, and this is just a bridge too far. If it is found the administrator in question was out-of-line, I request that he rescind his accusations. RGloucester — ☎ 02:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Q5W5 (talk · contribs) isn't an administrator, and their account was only created on the 20th of this month. I think they copied an admin's userpage. I'll have a word with them on that subject. For now I'll assume that this is a new and naive user. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I guess that's what I get for "assuming good faith" and taking a person's user page at face value. RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- You get karma points nonetheless. It's a copy of Bucketsofg's userpage. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Given the newness of the account, the copied userpage from Bucketsofg and the copied talkpage content from Qwyrixian, and the aggressive and proficient use of policy quotes, I'm guessing this is not a new user, and they set out to create the impression of an established admin account. I'm about to sign off for the evening and have left questions of Q5W5's userpage: additional investigation is warranted here. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I've been fooled by this too. This is even more shocking now. Q5W5 has been a good contributor though. I guess some people are just that good at being deceitful. That's a bummer. :-( L'Aquotique (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- You might want to consider adding User:Ais523/adminrights to your custom.js. VanIsaacWScont 03:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Based on the user's admission [8] that they intended to deceive, I've blocked Q5W5 indefinitely. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Can I remove the affair from talk page, or would that be inappropriate? I really don't like having personal attacks plastered all over my wall. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Unblock request
Q5W5 (talk · contribs) has now issued an unblock request with the following rationale:
What I did was wrong and I should have known better. I have been a useful contributor in the past as an IP, but I let my ego get the best of me and willfully violated multiple policies because things were not going my way. If there is even the tiniest possibility that I could be unblocked, I promise to not even have a user page for a while, stay completely away from the Ukraine articles, and work on another topic of interest. I feel very bad about the way I treated User:RGloucester and want to rebuild my reputation here. If you do not want to let me do this, however, I completely understand and will be accepting of it. I am a very troubled individual anyway, so I do not expect much either way this turns out, since my life is already quite meaningless and damned. My sincere apologies for insulting RGloucester. Thank you for your time.
With WP:AGF and WP:NOPUNISH in mind, I would tentatively support an unblock coupled with implementing the Ukraine topic ban volunteered by the user, but would value a second (and third, fourth,...) opinion. Acroterion and RGloucester's views would be especially welcome. WaggersTALK 12:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'll be away in meetings for the rest of the morning and a for good bit of the afternoon, so any admin can implement whatever consensus develops in my absence. As apologies go, it's a pretty good one, acknowledging the sin, apologizing to the victim, and promising reform. However, the offense was egregious: a deliberate attempt to bully users using a fake admin account, going so far as to appropriate pieces of inactive admin's userspace, presumably so it wouldn't be readily noticed. But as noted above, we don't use blocks as punishment, and the unblock request is the sort of request we hope to see in these circumstances (and all too often don't). I'm leaning toward unblocking, with strong restrictions enforceable by immediately reblocking. Acroterion (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Based on the accounts and proxies that just got blocked, AGF goes out the window. This was an extensive effort involving impersonation of several accounts: I should have picked up a couple of them without CU if it hadn't been so late, i.e. L'Aquotique who commented above and who used the same methods of impersonation. I think we're done here. Acroterion (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'd also support an unblock with the Ukraine topic ban volunteered by the user. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I have declined their unblock request because they are socking. I will post my full results shortly. —DoRD (talk) 13:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/L'Aquotique
L'Aquotique (talk · contribs) is the oldest account of the group I turned up so far, but be aware that most of the accounts and IPs I uncovered have been used to participate in the same talk page discussions, deletion discussions, noticeboard discussions and probably more, so some cleanup and striking of !votes will be necessary. —DoRD (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie White as it was sock-initiated and -infested. Fram (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I deleted three more userpages that were copied from those of legitimate editors. —DoRD (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't expect to step on a hornet's nest. That's the most comprehensive deception I've seen in my time here. I'm glad it's being dealt with. RGloucester — ☎ 15:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Archive.is
There is a viewpoint that all archive.is links are bad and evil. I make no comment on this.
There is also some considerable work going on (by either 'bots or editors) to remove all of these and to leave the links unarchived. In many cases, the link were long archived via archive.org and have only recently been changed to use archive.is
There is little issue with replacing archive.is links by links to another archiving site, such as archive.org. However is the removal of such links (and not their replacement) considered to be acceptable?
Is it credible to believe an editor who removes such links, and claims "they will be bulk replaced in the future"? Professionally I'm a coder, I build tools to do such work - no way would I work that way. It's far easier to remove and replace an archive link for a single link at a time (and most importantly, knowing that this link needs to be archived). A bulk operation in the future would be tantamount to scanning each and every WP EL, then determining those that are deadlinks (a serious amount of 'bot work) and then adding an archive link. Such a process is technically ludicrous, compared to replacing as encountered, one-by-one.
This issue is growing in dramah. It would be useful to all concerned to get a clear statement ASAP as to our policy on how these archive.is links are to be replaced, and what's acceptable behaviour around them.
Some backstory is here. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually one does not need to check if the links are dead, proactive additions of archive urls before they die is OK too. Just because you think one thing is easier than another doesnt mean everyone thinks that way. As I have told you before stop stalking my edits and causing drama. Werieth (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I'm supportive of being serious with archive.is links. However I do have some concerns over the complete removal of citations. It seems to me that such cases should worst case, be replaced with a link to the original URL, so someone can try and dig up a copy archived somewhere else, or may be use the details for the citation where they exist to see if it exists elsewhere. If the tools being used can't do that or there's no desire to visit archive.is to find out the original URL, I suggest such cases be left until someone is able to deal with them. Of course if there's another reason to remove the citation, e.g. it's not an RS or it's a copyvio, then it can be removed as it always can be. Edit: In some cases even though the only URL may be an archive.is URL, it's possible the original URL is working.Nil Einne (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- They're being removed from articles, but not article histories. There's ways for bots and semi-automated tools to find articles that used these and figure out the replacements. The temporary lack of archiveurls is less an issue than "supporting" the problematic archive.is links. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- And Ive got about 80 snapshots (all articles that use archive.is links) if anyone wants it for historical purposes. Werieth (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- No-one is suggesting not removing the archive.is links. However they also ought to be replaced with acceptable archive links. The best way to do this is at the time the archive.is link is removed. The idea that this is somehow easier, or even practical, by trawling through article histories is ridiculous. Just do it the sensible and straightforward way. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- We're treating the archive.is links as damaging as links to offsite copyright violations, and thus the repairing is a step that can be done after the fact after we've remove the potentially damaging part first. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are we? When was this established? I took part in the RFC and was supportive of cracking down on archive.is but don't recall copyvio being much of a concern and a quick check seems to confirm it wasn't. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- "We're treating the archive.is links as damaging as links to offsite copyright violations,"
- Why? They aren't. Have you not read the RfC? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- We're treating the archive.is links as damaging as links to offsite copyright violations, and thus the repairing is a step that can be done after the fact after we've remove the potentially damaging part first. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I notice that Werieth has completely removed at least one entire reliable source citation (including cross-references to it), with the justification being only to remove a link to an archive. This is really not appropriate. I don't know how many times this has been done, but it is damaging Wikipedia by converting well-sourced content into unsourced content. There is no requirement that all citations must have online links. Please see WP:OFFLINE. Looking in the user's history, I see lots of edits that may be taking similar action, and several objections on the user's Talk page. Such actions need to be immediately halted, checked, and reverted. I do not object to removing links to an inappropriate archive, if the archive in question has been determined to be a problem. But I do very strongly object to completely removing citations to reliable sources instead of just removing or replacing such links as a remedy for that. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- When the .is link is removed from that citation in that example, there's no way to trace the source; archive.is links should never have been used alone but always as secondary to the main URL that they capture. So no, that's not a reliable citation. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- That was a citation referencing Smithsonian.com. The Smithsonian Institution is an extremely well-known and reliable source. Moreover, there is no requirement that sources must be online at all. Please see WP:OFFLINE. This is really poor behavior. Sources are not required to be clickable. If there is a problem with a source, that is a different issue than if there is a problem with an archive of a source. Problems with the quality of sources should be discussed as an entirely separate matter. Citations definitely should not be removed in a wholesale fashion just because they were previously linked to an inappropriate archive. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The citation lacked information on what the original publication was, making the citation a failure of WP:V. I am not saying Smithsonian is unreliable, but the citation - w/o the .is link - is. Yes, I'm sure someone could search for it on google or at the Smithsonian website and get the url, but that needs to be done, and the danger of the archive.is links is more a concern to put that off until later. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- But how's anyone going to know to do it when the whole citation is gone? Yes many of these examples aren't perfect citation practice, but it doesn't mean it's beneficial to remove all trace of them from the active page. There are so many options that are far better. Nil Einne (talk) 16:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Personally, I still think in cases where there's only an archive.is URL, we should keep the archive.is URL until someone at least re/adds the original URL. You can even disable the URL so it's not clickable if you want. But yet, it would be better to at least keep the details even if the archive.is URL is removed (preferably noting in the citation that the URL was removed to make it easier when someone is trying to work out what it was). Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The archive.is are not appropriate to keep as they are found, removal immediately is appropriate. But I will agree that what could be done is that if links are being removed, that the diff of the removal could be archived on the talk page in a header that points to the archive.is issue, and provides the diff, so that editors can know what was removed and then be able to fix from that. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Removal of a link is different from removal of a citation. Removal of a link may be appropriate. Removal of a citation is not.—BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The citation without a URL to the original publication is a broken citation, and its removal is fine. Just saying that the work was published at Smithsonian.com is not sufficient to meet WP:V; it would be like pointing to a article that appeared in the NYTimes without given idea of date of publication. Could the original publication be found? Sure, but that's work for editors to correct. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are problems with that perspective: 1) the edit summary here was extremely misleading because what appears to be a removal of a link is the removal of a complete reference, 2) here we had an exact title, exact author name, and publication by an extremely reliable source and we know that the source actually existed because it had previously been linked to an archived copy, so complete removal under those circumstances is just nuts, 3) the proper action for an imperfect reference to an obviously reliable source is to work to improve the clarity of the citation or request for someone else to improve it, not to just delete it. Simply converting sourced content to unsourced content is damaging. Here the page wasn't even left with a citation request. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, the date of publication was provided too. If there had been no link, this would have been judged a completely acceptable reference. Here is the edit: [9], and I think it is, objectively, damage to the encyclopedia. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are problems with that perspective: 1) the edit summary here was extremely misleading because what appears to be a removal of a link is the removal of a complete reference, 2) here we had an exact title, exact author name, and publication by an extremely reliable source and we know that the source actually existed because it had previously been linked to an archived copy, so complete removal under those circumstances is just nuts, 3) the proper action for an imperfect reference to an obviously reliable source is to work to improve the clarity of the citation or request for someone else to improve it, not to just delete it. Simply converting sourced content to unsourced content is damaging. Here the page wasn't even left with a citation request. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The citation without a URL to the original publication is a broken citation, and its removal is fine. Just saying that the work was published at Smithsonian.com is not sufficient to meet WP:V; it would be like pointing to a article that appeared in the NYTimes without given idea of date of publication. Could the original publication be found? Sure, but that's work for editors to correct. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Removal of a link is different from removal of a citation. Removal of a link may be appropriate. Removal of a citation is not.—BarrelProof (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The archive.is are not appropriate to keep as they are found, removal immediately is appropriate. But I will agree that what could be done is that if links are being removed, that the diff of the removal could be archived on the talk page in a header that points to the archive.is issue, and provides the diff, so that editors can know what was removed and then be able to fix from that. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- The citation lacked information on what the original publication was, making the citation a failure of WP:V. I am not saying Smithsonian is unreliable, but the citation - w/o the .is link - is. Yes, I'm sure someone could search for it on google or at the Smithsonian website and get the url, but that needs to be done, and the danger of the archive.is links is more a concern to put that off until later. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- ??? Sorry but that doesn't make much sense. Archive.is is bad for many reasons, but they do on the face of it have the stuff you'd normally expect from an archive service. You can obtain the original URL simply by visiting the archive.is link and taking it from there, which is what I did. (And IP added it to the article before I could.) As I said above, if you don't want to visit archive.is to get the link, while that may be understandable, it's not a good reason IMO to remove the citation and make it difficult to recover or even know it existed. (It's easy to see someone properly citing something, us ending up with an archive.is link only, the whole citation being removed, and someones careful work remove when someone recognises there's no citation and removes the claim.) Note also in a case when the details are fairly complete, as it was here, you can potentially find the citation without visiting archive.is. Heck you could probably use a Google cache or similar copy (edit: of the archive.is link) to find the original URL and set up your firewall or browser such that you don't visit anything associated with archive.is while doing so (or just look at the HTML file from Google or whatever). Nil Einne (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If there is a problem with the clarity of a reference, that should be raised as an entirely separate matter from the appropriateness of its archival. Wholesale removal of references is not the appropriate action. Wholesale deletion of citations to sources is very damaging. In this case there was clearly an article that was being referenced. It was an article that was published by the national museum of the United States – a very highly regarded institution of the highest academic reputation – one of the highest quality sources possible. Just deleting the reference because of its archive location is very damaging. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- How many citations has Werieth removed from articles because they were archived somewhere undesirable? Such actions need to be immediately halted, checked, and reverted. If there is some different problem with a citation, that is a different matter and should be tagged, discussed, etc. – not just deleted because of the archive location. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Werieth is continuing to remove archived links, with no effort or credible intention of restoring them, even as we discuss this. A GF editor would at least have held off during the discussion. Yet again, normal policies and behaviour just aren't something that Werieth feels ought to restrict a super-editor like himself. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have just seen a reply to my comment on Werieth's Talk page that does not appear to be an appropriate response.
The user seems to have proceeded to make multiple edits per minute while this discussion has been ongoing. I suggest an immediate block to put a stop to this until this settles down.—BarrelProof (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2014 (UTC)- Strikethrough above, because I actually don't see further problematic edits after 15:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have just seen a reply to my comment on Werieth's Talk page that does not appear to be an appropriate response.
- Werieth is continuing to remove archived links, with no effort or credible intention of restoring them, even as we discuss this. A GF editor would at least have held off during the discussion. Yet again, normal policies and behaviour just aren't something that Werieth feels ought to restrict a super-editor like himself. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- How many citations has Werieth removed from articles because they were archived somewhere undesirable? Such actions need to be immediately halted, checked, and reverted. If there is some different problem with a citation, that is a different matter and should be tagged, discussed, etc. – not just deleted because of the archive location. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) If there is a problem with the clarity of a reference, that should be raised as an entirely separate matter from the appropriateness of its archival. Wholesale removal of references is not the appropriate action. Wholesale deletion of citations to sources is very damaging. In this case there was clearly an article that was being referenced. It was an article that was published by the national museum of the United States – a very highly regarded institution of the highest academic reputation – one of the highest quality sources possible. Just deleting the reference because of its archive location is very damaging. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- That was a citation referencing Smithsonian.com. The Smithsonian Institution is an extremely well-known and reliable source. Moreover, there is no requirement that sources must be online at all. Please see WP:OFFLINE. This is really poor behavior. Sources are not required to be clickable. If there is a problem with a source, that is a different issue than if there is a problem with an archive of a source. Problems with the quality of sources should be discussed as an entirely separate matter. Citations definitely should not be removed in a wholesale fashion just because they were previously linked to an inappropriate archive. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- When the .is link is removed from that citation in that example, there's no way to trace the source; archive.is links should never have been used alone but always as secondary to the main URL that they capture. So no, that's not a reliable citation. --MASEM (t) 16:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
A question, since I am new to this issue: The RFC closure reads to me as if there is absolutely no consensus given for removal of anything but archive.is links, that is, URLs. Does anyone disagree? --j⚛e deckertalk 17:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Depends on how literal you want to be. Certainly things like "archiveurl=" parameters that generate URLs would seem to be covered, and a citation that relies on a URL is pretty useless after the URL is deleted.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think I'd be that literal, but at the point where the title of a reliable publication, a title, an author, a date, and a vsiited-date were provided, I think removing all of those seems ... a stretch from the RfC. I don't know if anyone is arguing otherwise, the single example above--well, I haven't done the research to know if it's just an error, I AGF, but the single example above strikes me as not plausibly backed by the RfC. *shrug* --j⚛e deckertalk 18:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- Examples aside, the reason I first raise the issue (which was before any existed) was because of this thread User talk:Werieth#Do_you_mind?. Werieth appears to state there that they would remove an entire citation just because it uses the citeweb template. The citation has a lot of info. If you look carefully, it becomes clear the wrong citation format was used, since it's a journal article or similar.
- The wrong template is unfortunate, but removing this apparently good RS just because the URL happened to be archive.is is surely harmful. It's claimed that cite web requires a URL. This would make sense, however I don't see any error here [10] so I'm not sure what's what.
- Regardless, there are many options to deal with this, such as adding a dummy URL with a quick explaination. Or using a temporary copy of cite web which doesn't require URLs. Or even just, as I keep saying recovering the original URL. (As I mentioned in that discussion, I do have concern the URL is copyvio, but that's a seperate issue.)
- What's surely undesirable is removing this apparently goood citation which is primarily using the wrong template and doesn't even need a URL just because the URL was archive.is. While this didn't actually happen Werieth said that would have happened if they'd noticed what template was being used which makes it almost as problematic. I didn't look at the cite news case, but it sounds like another example.
- And yes, I still don't get why we have to have such extensive discussion, when we could just recover the original URL and replace archive.is but I guess I'm used to that on wikipedia by now. The funny thing is, as I also said in my first post, I've been strongly supportive of completely removing archive.is for a long while, I agree there's no way we can trust them. But I'm starting to see why people are so concerned when such a simple solution i.e. replacing archive.is with the original URL, is ignored. And instead we have good citations entirely removed or would have been entirely removed just because someone messed up the citation slightly and didn't include the original URL.
- Edit: Had a quick look at the contrib history for cases where a larger amount of info was removed. From that I found [11] where another citation was removed. While the info isn't great, it was been enough to find the citation even if the original URL wasn't recovered. In this case, the original URL didn't work at least, but someone found a replacement from the authors blog [12] which could have been found without the info that was removed as I said. (Although I still fee it would still be better to keep the original URL i.e. [13] to aide in the search for a replacement.) One good thing, in cases where the full archive.is citation format is used, it seems that at least the original URL is kept [14].
- Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- "and a citation that relies on a URL is pretty useless after the URL is deleted" I don't see how that's the case. I think consensus before anyone had even heard of archive.is is clear, even if a link is dead and never likely to come back, it's worth keeping around in case someone is able to find an archived copy. Perhaps if someone makes a thorough effort to find a replacement URL but isn't able to find one and particularly when there is an alternative citation it's worth removing such citations entirely, but it's definitely not something that should be automated. AFAIK, this consensus hasn't changed.
- As me and others have said above, equally questionable to remove a citation just because the only URL is archive.is. As I've said several times now, including the third comment in this thread, IMO the best course of action would be to rescue the original URL (which probably shouldn't have been removed, if it was) from archive.is using the tools being used to remove them. Baring that there are plenty of other options ranging from hiding but keeping the archive.is URL so someone else can resurrect the original URL, to removing the archive.is info completely but keeping anything else and preferably a note about what happened. For reasons I've explained several times now, it seems to me this is better than completely removing citations just because the only URL was archive.is when it's fairly trivial to recover the original URL from there, probably without even visiting archive.is if you're that opposed. In fact, my experience so far is that it's not even clear how many of these are dead URLs, it seems some people have unfortunately added archive.is as the only URL even when the original URL is still working, so even more reason not to remove these citations.
- Depending on the depth of the citation info, someone may be dig it up from that. But even if it's a bare URL, it's probably better to keep it around to establish that there is a dead citation, someone just has to recover the original URL from archive.is. While they're at it, they could potentially flesh out the citation info.
- How many case are we talking about anyway? If people are really so desperate to get rid of any sign of archive.is that they can't tolerate keeping it in some fashion until someone gets around to recovering the original URL, I could probably do it if it's under 100 (entirely manually) if someone gives me a simple list.
- Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- This affects 11584 articles currently. Its been quite a time frame already (~10 months) for people to remove the links. When possible I leave the citation in place, however in some cases the reference refers to a webpage (a online only reference), where after removal the reference is no longer viable and I remove it. If you want to wade through all the pages with archive.is links I can provide you a list, but removal of the links is required via the RfC. With the current restrictions on archive.is the existing links are problematic. Werieth (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think I'd be that literal, but at the point where the title of a reliable publication, a title, an author, a date, and a vsiited-date were provided, I think removing all of those seems ... a stretch from the RfC. I don't know if anyone is arguing otherwise, the single example above--well, I haven't done the research to know if it's just an error, I AGF, but the single example above strikes me as not plausibly backed by the RfC. *shrug* --j⚛e deckertalk 18:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I don't know how many times it happened, or the exact circumstances of each, but this user made many many edits very rapidly, and removing a citation completely when providing a WP:Edit summary that only refers to removing links to an archive is misleading. I found other edits ([15] [16]) that appear to have done this, without looking very hard. Citations are not required to be linked. A citation does not "depend on" a link, although linking is desirable. See WP:DEADREF and WP:OFFLINE. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
An admin may want to talk to this user
Currently I'm speaking with FilmFounder onhis talk page . He came to my attention when he posted this on the OTRS board . I posted a note on his talk page, and he's rsponded . He's not ranting or being incivil, but I sense that he doesn't really understand policy on Wikiepdia.
He and I have spoken back and forth on his talk page, and I'm getting a sense of either him wanting to own the article or posting the history of the festival as he sees it . Either case, additional voices on his talk page wouldn't hurt. I will note he's hasn't edited the page in question The Sarasota Film Festival . Feel free to chime in, or you can trout me if you think I'm getting trolled on his page (trout are yummy anyway :) )! Kosh Vorlon 17:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I added a note that should clear up a few things, but reading though, I don't think he is really paying much attention to what you are saying. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Editor reverts closure of RfC due to disagreement with outcome
I closed this RfC (started on 11 April and posted on the Requests for Closure board) five days ago as no consensus, with the rationale you can see here. The editor who started the RfC did not like the close, and started a discussion on my talk page yesterday, where I explained the decision twice. The editor has now reverted my close of the RfC, claiming "wrong conclusion made about discussion". Can someone else review. Thanks, Number 57 17:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the discussion and your closure and found that you were right to close this as "no consensus". I have reclosed the discussion and left an explanation about the heraldic aspect of the debate. De728631 (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
IP Vandalism
IP user 67.222.120.226 seems to be here at Wikipedia for no other reason than to vandalize articles and disrupt. He's been blocked and warned numerous times judging by his userpage and returned from a block here [17] to leave this vile message on my user talk page [18]. Just as a note, I've never come past this IP user before on Wikipedia. I would suggest an indefinite ban of the IP as it's now going on various articles and vandalizing them with people having to warn him. AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind. Looks like someone blocked him even before I finished my post above. Either that or ya'll can see into the future here at the Admininistrative Noticeboards. lol! AmericanDad86 (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)