Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
You may {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
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.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu
(Initiated 41 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
{{not done}}
Ratnahastin; ANI reports that have been archived will not be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)- Restored the request because AirshipJungleman 29 has refused to clarify his above misleading response.[1] Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League
(Initiated 74 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC) - As an update, it's been almost two months, the comments have died down and the discussion appears to have ended. I suggest three or more uninvolved editors step forward to do so, to reduce the responsibility and burden of a single editor. Either taking a part each or otherwise. I'm aware that's not the normal procedure, but this isn't a normal RfC and remains highly contentious. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Bump nableezy - 19:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- "Part 1: Israel/Palestine" has been closed by editor TrangaBellam – "part 2: antisemitism" & "part 3: hate symbol database" remain open. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there
19:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)20:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators
(Initiated 73 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 72 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 70 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Climate_change#RFC:_Food_and_health_section
(Initiated 64 days ago on 17 April 2024) This was part of DRN process (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245#Climate_change). It is ready to be closed [2] [3]. Bogazicili (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Israel and apartheid#RfC: Wikilink to Weaponization of antisemitism
(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 April 2024) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Ongoing court cases involving low profile individuals
(Initiated 48 days ago on 2 May 2024) RfC template has been removed by the bot. TarnishedPathtalk 13:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
- (Initiated 48 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
- (Initiated 45 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
- (Initiated 45 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA
Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Andy Ngo#RfC: First sentence of the lead
(Initiated 47 days ago on 3 May 2024) Discussion has slowed with only one !vote in the last 5 days. TarnishedPathtalk 11:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 440#RfC: RFE/RL
(Initiated 43 days ago on 7 May 2024) Archived Request for Comment. 73.219.238.21 (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles
(Initiated 40 days ago on 10 May 2024) RFC outcome is fairly clear (very clear majority consensus), however, a non WikiProject Weather person should close it. I was the RFC proposer, so I am classified too involved to close. There were three “points” in the RFC, and editors supported/opposed the points individually. Point one and three had 3-to-1 consensus’ and point two had a 2-to-1 consensus. Just need a non WP:Weather person to do the closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Genocide of Indigenous peoples#RFC: Palestinian genocide accusations
(Initiated 26 days ago on 24 May 2024) Little activity in the past week or so. Much discussion has been had and many sources have been reviewed. A careful review of the discussion and arguments made at the RFC should allow a close. Dylanvt (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Early close
(Initiated 20 days ago on 31 May 2024) Since it's an injunctive discussion, I was hoping someone could step in and close after I withdrew my own. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Awareness#Request for Comment on ordering of philosophy and psychology
(Initiated 0 days ago on 19 June 2024) An editor started an RfC confirmed to be improper by a third opinion. Please close the RfC as an improper RfC. Closetside (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 6 | 17 | 138 | 161 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 9 | 27 | 36 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 21#Category:Crafts deities
(Initiated 77 days ago on 3 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 23#Category:Mohave tribe
(Initiated 74 days ago on 6 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Indian massacres
(Initiated 73 days ago on 7 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 29#Category:Muppet performers
(Initiated 68 days ago on 12 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:First Nations drawing artists
(Initiated 67 days ago on 13 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Neo-Latin writers
(Initiated 66 days ago on 15 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Category:Fictional West Asian people
(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 4#Natural history
(Initiated 54 days ago on 26 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Roman Catholic bishops in Macau
(Initiated 52 days ago on 28 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 3#Frances and Richard Lockridge
(Initiated 50 days ago on 30 April 2024) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Anti-Normanism#Requested move 22 May 2024
(Initiated 28 days ago on 22 May 2024). Should be closed by an uninvolved admin.--Berig (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS
(Initiated 23 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Srebrenica massacre#Requested_move_2_June_2024
(Initiated 17 days ago on 2 June 2024), then relisted 10 June, Tom B (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Dani Cavallaro
(Initiated 16 days ago on 4 June 2024) A formal closure would be helpful to solidify consensus for future reference. Thanks! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
process if a final/level 4 warning has been used as a first warning
Just a question - what's the accepted process in the following circumstances: I noticed some petty vandalism on the Bugatti Veyron article here and reverted it. I checked the editors contributions and saw this was the second time they'd done this, so thought to leave a message on their talk page - only to find that Roxy the dog had already done so, but gone straight to the "only warning" template.
Firstly - as per WP:BITE that seems a little extreme for what (at the time) was petty stuff and the only edit from a newcomer, but it also left me or anybody else little room to add any additional commentary about their second edit.
I left another template anyway, but it seems a bit weird to have a message that says "This is your only warning" - which is promptly followed by another warning. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's vandalism, and it's petty and pointless vandalism. There's really no point to welcoming an editor who engages in that sort of behavior, or trying to encourage good behavior. It's best to let them know that if they don't stop on their own, we can force them to stop. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's really the problem of the person leaving the over-the-top "only warning". It is quite acceptable to follow it with a level 1 or level 2 warning, or even better, a non-numeric handwritten note. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- An "only warning" should only be used for extremely bad vandalism - not for anything on the level of normal vandalism. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- The warning wasn't "over the top". Plonker was clearly not here to build an encyclopeadia. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Those look like "can I really edit Wikipedia?"-style vandalism, in my opinion not worthy of "only warning" level templates. There's a possibility (though small) that this editor can turn into a productive one. I use "only warning" templates also, but the vandalism must strike me as intentionally damaging the topic, or attempting to punk Wikipedia. Even then I've undoubtedly been too hasty on occasion. Anyway, if you see this you can always add a personal note underneath, with a gentler message encouraging constructive participation. (but never excusing vandalism, of course) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- (e/c) The vandalism - I agree it was vandalism - was only petty, not obscene, racist, offensive in any particular fashion - and given that it was a first edit, not even a pattern. I mean - changing 407 km/h (253 mph) to read "20Kph" - yeah, that should knock Grawp off the top spot, eh? While the end result may have been for a level 4 warning and ultimately a block somewhere down the line, doesn't jumping straight to a final warning deny AGF, or indeed give the editor any real incentive to continue when faced with such an attitude? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- The warning wasn't "over the top". Plonker was clearly not here to build an encyclopeadia. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- This was definitely not "only warning" level vandalism, it was run-of-the-mill number-change vandalism. This gets a revert and a lv1 from me, generally. I use lv2 or lv3 as a first warning for more serious cases, and generally will only drop an "only warning" if the edit includes dick pics, explicit racism, or requires revdelete. On the other hand I have blocked users who leave excessive warning templates, per WP:BITE. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well that turned needlessly sinister. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- No kidding Floq. Youze guys had better look at my edit history for today then. It's a typical day. I still see no reason to change my dealings with plonkers like this. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Because other's are telling you
it's overly harsh, generally out of step with community norms, and would you please dial it back a notch?
That... that's the reason. GMGtalk 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)- As the OP here, can I ask Floquenbeam why this is "needlessly sinister"? Especially when I look at Roxy's edit history - as he requests we do so - and see that L4 warnings are pretty much all he uses, even for such heinous edits such as this or this. I started this thread as just a question, but after looking at the edit history, I really think Roxy is being a bit excessive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- I was referring to the veiled threat of blocking Roxy the dog. Do you think that's a reasonable response? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- As the OP here, can I ask Floquenbeam why this is "needlessly sinister"? Especially when I look at Roxy's edit history - as he requests we do so - and see that L4 warnings are pretty much all he uses, even for such heinous edits such as this or this. I started this thread as just a question, but after looking at the edit history, I really think Roxy is being a bit excessive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Because other's are telling you
- No kidding Floq. Youze guys had better look at my edit history for today then. It's a typical day. I still see no reason to change my dealings with plonkers like this. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well that turned needlessly sinister. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm not well versed in the etiquette expected of administrators, so couldn't comment with authority on whether a block is warranted. However, if Roxy thinks a block is warranted for a single silly edit, then I guess Ivanvector's implication for blocking a user who peppers dozens of L4 warnings for first and trivial offences, is ok - especially when backed up by policy. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- That strikes me as having seriously messed up priorities.
- I'm always puzzled by this idea that some kid is going to vandalize, and then might become productive, but only if treated with kid gloves, and who won't become productive if clearly told that what they're doing is vandalism and will lead to a block. Most of the time, the gently escalating warning system is giving the vandal the attention they crave, and actually reinforcing the desire to vandalize. I'm not saying there's no such thing as a reformed vandal, I'm saying that (a) the odds are very low, (b) if they're going to reform, they can reform after a level 4 warning just as easily as after a level 1 warning. While I don't care if others want to be more gentle, and I don't care if others want to recommend a softer approach to Roxy, given the unlikely payoff, it seems really weird to threaten a long-term productive editor with a block; that's much, much more likely to damage the encyclopedia than too quickly warning vandals about being blocked if they don't knock it off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Chaheel, did you look at the edit histories of the pages concerned, and the warnings issued already to the editors concerned in the two examples you gave above? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, because much like your own editing style I made assumptions. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- As I said in my previous edsum, you should. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 21:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, because much like your own editing style I made assumptions. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Chaheel, did you look at the edit histories of the pages concerned, and the warnings issued already to the editors concerned in the two examples you gave above? -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 20:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Am I missing something here?
- An individual creates a new account and vandalizes an article, using a deliberately misleading edit summary ("changed the date").
- The vandalism is reverted a few minutes later, and the new account receives a warning.
- The individual returns three hours later and vandalizes the same article as his second edit using this account, again using a false and misleading edit summary: ("nothing more just updated speeds").
- Now we're having an extended discussion on AN about this.
- Seriously? This is obviously someone who has edited Wikipedia before, and created an account solely for petty vandalism. There is no reason whatsoever to 'escalate' through three or four levels of warnings, when it's pretty obviously a child or childish adult screwing around and wasting our time. To an experienced admin, that is pretty apparent from the first edit, and painfully obvious by the second. This isn't a situation where we need to talk about which warning template is appropriate; this is a situation where an admin should just revert and block.
- I have done so now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Following that, I don't see any need to respond here any further, unless a direct question needs answering. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 21:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- The short answer to the original question is that there is no defined process, different users take a variety of approaches to handling vandalism. If you want to make a big deal out of how one particular user is doing it, WP:ANI is thataway. If yo were trying to have a policy discussion WP:VPP is over there. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
It behooves everyone to remember the purpose of Wikipedia. Bear with me; this IS relevent.
The only purpose of a block is to prevent disruption. If an obscure article is 'wrong' for 10 minutes, it is not disruptive.
If we deal with users like this in a professional, understanding way then - very occasionally - they become productive editors.
I am sure that most people reading this will be mostly dealing with vandals, and thus jaded; but I beg you to step back.
999/1000 of people who make edits like this will be useless to the objective of Wikipedia. But that one might be gold. Just think, if 1/1000 makes 10,000 good edits, it's a net positive.
There is no 'level 1-3' warning system here; that's an entirely fictitious system, which may be convenient but has absolutely no meaning.
TL;DR: Be nice. 99% of the time you'd be right to assume they're assholes, but that 1% is pure gold. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Elegant words from someone who just told another editor to "get the fuck out", at the Help Desk of all places. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:53, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Upon reading the comment above, I'm tempted to opine that losing one nominally valuable editor who thinks it's funny to write "MY BROTHER IS A DICKHEAD" or change the top speed of a car to 20mph, (contrast with actually funny vandalism like this) is a sufficiently low cost to pay to make 999 vandals think twice about doing it again.
- For the record: my IP address received a "warning" that consisted of being told to get a life, coupled with speculation about my mental faculties and social acumen once, before I registered an account. I didn't even perform the vandalism it was in response to; an IP whose last quartet had one additional digit to mine did (kids, never drink and copy and paste). Despite being given that incredibly bad impression, I still registered an account and have been editing ever since. Mostly because I'm the kind of person who takes enjoyment in contributing to an encyclopedia. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:03, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Forgive me...I'm in stitches...that we're even having this discussion. It would be interesting to partake in the research to see the valuable time vandals consume vs the productivity of the project without them. Think of the anonymous phone calls over the years to retailers asking, "Do you have Prince Albert in a can?" If the clerk says "Yes, we do" the caller says "Better let him out!" and hangs up. Time sink - no chance those anonymous callers will ever become fans of the store or Prince Albert. Just saying. Atsme📞📧 22:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
What is being sorely missed here is the wider point of warnings and other administrative intimidation being used on users who will have no idea what any of it means. It is fine for users to be warned, but being warned with the stiffest warning first, as opposed to a simple welcome to Wikipedia and a note, is not in anyway an assumption of good faith. New users should be welcomed. They should not be hounded off the project for what is an in this case a tiny edit. The whole system of warnings needs looking at. Heavy handedness, and bad faith assumptions are rife by the looks of it from some users. I am not an administrator, I am simply someone who has had too many sanctimonious warnings and other threatening gibberish placed on my talk page, all with little to no explanation and no prior discussion being attempted. It seems that the lazy option is taken of warn and run. Then block and be damned. The way new users and for that matter any user should be approached is with discussion and openness. Along with a mind to inform and educate. This whole shtick of warn and scare off is never going to get new users into the project. Anther user described the edit in question as an "I can really edit this?" style edit. Users doing that should not be condemned they should be mentored. This thread shows a far deeper issue of the problem underlying the need to have bought this thread up in the first place. Sport and politics (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Understood - I'm actually an avid supporter of editor retention, so I'm inclined to give productive editors the same consideration I give vandals. I'm not convinced that vandals should be given more consideration simply because we "assume" they aren't familiar with PAGs and that's why they're being disruptive. If they don't understand the difference after one stern warning, why should we treat them any differently from the way we treat veteran editors who knowingly abuse 1RR DS? Regardless, it still boils down to the discretion of our trusted administrators. Are there any stats showing the results of vandalism/persistent vandalism after being warned? Atsme📞📧 00:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Standard offer for User:Mgstaggers
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am willing to unblock User:Mgstaggers based on the wp:Standard offer and his unblock request [4]. I need community approval for unblocking per WP:SO. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm unsure of policy here: this is a CheckUser block; you got approval from a checkuser ([5]) but not the blocking checkuser. Do you need Bbb23's consent? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." (WP:NEVERUNBLOCK) Still, hard to "blame" Vanja as Katie instructed him to come here. In any event, I know the user was blocked for spam, and I know he says he won't continue spamming if he's unblocked, but I don't know (haven't looked) whether a significant portion of his edits before being blocked were not spam. That would seem to me to be an important question.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, my bad. Katietalk 20:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, with that procedural pedantry out of the way (you're welcome) I support the unblock request. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of socking after the original case, and the incidences of spam (I see three total spam edits between two accounts?) seem to be an odd misstep in a generally productive history. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose I see no history at all to go off of. We wouldn't likely grant this user pending changes reviewer or rollbacker if they asked for it because there is no reasonable editing history to track. They have a total of
171178 total edits, were caught socking, and spamming links. There is nothing in their history which suggests to us that we should trust them to be a productive contributor. If anything, their history of contributions is what you would expect from a spammer who is attempting to build a long-term account that slips past filters and reviewers: short spurts of editing over several years, bouts of WikiLove messages, and then suddenly they start spamming when they have enough edits not to be a completely new redlink account. They should remain blocked and per the banning policy a declined unblock should be taken as a community site ban. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- On the same token, one thing we know about SPA spammers is they do not stop when their first account is blocked. They make new accounts and come back over and over and over again. Mgstaggers has intermittent constructive history going back many years, even though it doesn't amount to much and you're probably right about granting them advanced permissions, it's also hardly enough that they would have become intimately familiar with all of our policies and guidelines. I'm willing to assume good faith that they made a fairly common mistake and were dealt a pretty severe punishment because of it (rightly so, socking is serious) but that they seem to have learned from that. At least, there's not evidence that they haven't, and I still like to think we're not in the business of kicking users out forever because they made one or two mistakes as n00bs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- The standard offer is not typically intended for situations like this, however. It is intended for users who have a history on Wikimedia projects of constructive contributions and who made a mistake. That is simply not the case here. We also don't know that they aren't an SPA spammer: we know that they haven't socked in the last 90 days, which given their history, is entirely in line with them still intending to sock again. I would be more open to this if they actually had a record on any Wikimedia project, but they simply don't have that. Even with LTAs that are requesting the offer we typically have some history to go off of. We have nothing at all here. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- On the same token, one thing we know about SPA spammers is they do not stop when their first account is blocked. They make new accounts and come back over and over and over again. Mgstaggers has intermittent constructive history going back many years, even though it doesn't amount to much and you're probably right about granting them advanced permissions, it's also hardly enough that they would have become intimately familiar with all of our policies and guidelines. I'm willing to assume good faith that they made a fairly common mistake and were dealt a pretty severe punishment because of it (rightly so, socking is serious) but that they seem to have learned from that. At least, there's not evidence that they haven't, and I still like to think we're not in the business of kicking users out forever because they made one or two mistakes as n00bs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Pedantry (and nitpicking) is always a good thing. 176 live edits and 2 deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, Bbb, I Xtools showed 171 total for me. Updated above (though my point stands). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Tony. !dave 06:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support, oddly enough, for pretty much the exact reasons Tony opposes. That is, because there's not much to go on, we can't really say anything about this editor. The reason the SO, to my understanding, came into existence is because the other option for long-term blocks and bans was for editors to show us how they have improved via contributions elsewhere on other projects. In most cases, that just didn't happen—there was rarely enough, and it was rarely good enough, and so indeffed editors stayed blocked. So we have the standard offer, in which we will typically overlook past misconduct. It doesn't mean that the person has to have been a net positive without the blockable offense. That said, I'm not particularly impressed with the unblock statement, and get the feeling that Mgstaggers still doesn't quite "get" Wikipedia (talking about the "Wikipedia database" and using the phrase "fervent wish" strike me as a bit... out of touch) but this could equally be due to inexperience. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mendaliv, correct, we do typically like to see positive participation before the block on this project and/or positive participation on other projects after the block. The latter also hasn't happened in this case. Just pointing that out since you brought it up in your support. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- My point is that the SO was devised to save people from the catch-22 scenario of having to show positive contributions post-block but don't really have an acceptable place to accrue them. Commons, for instance, is a very different environment, and small enough that you can work a long time without amassing the interactions a classical unblock discussion would demand. Contribs to non-English wikis are tough to evaluate, and not everybody can do that. The SO lets us skip all that. What matters, at least in my book, is that the grounds for blocking weren't particularly crazy (i.e., LTA cases probably aren't suitable for the SO) and that the request itself makes some steps towards taking ownership of past misdeeds. I'll admit the latter is where I pause in this case, but I feel the misconduct is petty enough that it's at the bottom end of a "SO required" unblock request, and so I feel comfortable enough giving the benefit of the doubt on that.I have thought hard about this case, and what makes me willing to completely ignore the lack of pre-block contribs is the fact that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We don't require a track record for people to enter the community for the first time, and because the SO is sort of "starting over", I see no reason to apply a different standard to pre-block contrib quality. If there were evidence that Mgstaggers were so incapable of editing that a return to good conduct would still be severely disruptive, I could be swayed, but I don't see it in this case. And, realistically, given editors with virtually no pre-block track record probably could just make a new account and not get noticed, I think it says something good that this editor is going the honest route. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I disagree, obviously, as I typically want proof from a socking spammer as to why I should trust them, and I don't see that here, but I understand your POV. I suppose my view is that while we are the encyclopedia anyone can edit, once you have shown that you simply don't care about our rules and want to use us to further commercial enterprises, you need a very strong case to be let back in. I don't see that here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- My point is that the SO was devised to save people from the catch-22 scenario of having to show positive contributions post-block but don't really have an acceptable place to accrue them. Commons, for instance, is a very different environment, and small enough that you can work a long time without amassing the interactions a classical unblock discussion would demand. Contribs to non-English wikis are tough to evaluate, and not everybody can do that. The SO lets us skip all that. What matters, at least in my book, is that the grounds for blocking weren't particularly crazy (i.e., LTA cases probably aren't suitable for the SO) and that the request itself makes some steps towards taking ownership of past misdeeds. I'll admit the latter is where I pause in this case, but I feel the misconduct is petty enough that it's at the bottom end of a "SO required" unblock request, and so I feel comfortable enough giving the benefit of the doubt on that.I have thought hard about this case, and what makes me willing to completely ignore the lack of pre-block contribs is the fact that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We don't require a track record for people to enter the community for the first time, and because the SO is sort of "starting over", I see no reason to apply a different standard to pre-block contrib quality. If there were evidence that Mgstaggers were so incapable of editing that a return to good conduct would still be severely disruptive, I could be swayed, but I don't see it in this case. And, realistically, given editors with virtually no pre-block track record probably could just make a new account and not get noticed, I think it says something good that this editor is going the honest route. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mendaliv, correct, we do typically like to see positive participation before the block on this project and/or positive participation on other projects after the block. The latter also hasn't happened in this case. Just pointing that out since you brought it up in your support. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support. I declined this user's unblock request on 2017-06-22, about a week after the original block. However, now that six months have passed, my position is that this user has shown no further block evasion and it's worth extending the standard offer. --Yamla (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support 2nd chance. If someone can make an edit like this, they are sure capable of making more productive edits. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Mendaliv. Reblocking is easy if needed. Miniapolis 00:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per Yamla, Mendaliv etc. In the event of problematic editing a reblock would indeed be simple, and, I suspect, swift. -- Begoon 02:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support As others have noted, were this a truly malicious user the odds are high that they would have simply tried to evade their block. And if it turns out we are wrong here, fixing the mistake is likely to involve only a few clicks. The Standard Offer is something that in the world business might be termed a speculative investment. In this case I find the potential risk/reward ratio to be fairly attractive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - while I appreciate Tony's concern, I wonder how this editor could *prove* he won't spam/sock again. Per Yamla and Ad Orientem and others, I strongly suspect this editor's work will face high scrutiny. Worth the risk, and easy to rectify if it doesn't work out. If unblocked, I would suggest to Mgstaggers that if they have any concerns that an edit of theirs may slightly violate NPOV or SPAM, that they seek advice from an experienced editor, because the leash will be short for some time. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - if we believe in a second chance, we must give it a real chance of succeeding. This user has lived up to our standard offer - which this user appears to do completely. I wouldn't oppose an explicit limit to a single account for the user, or an explicit restriction related to external links, but beyond that the only way to check if any user is truely ready to be unblocked is to see that they wait for a reasonable period of time, say the correct things, and then we unblock them and they edit correctly. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Two CUs (it would seem) have looked at it, and (most) everyone deserves a second change. I would add they should be limited to one account and understand they have being given a length of WP:ROPE, so they would do good to not hang themselves with it as they will be under higher scrutiny once unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support unblocking per TonyBallioni and WP:ROPE. Yes, he opposed. But I support for the reason he opposed: Without a history to work from we're left with AGF, and blocks are cheap anyways. It won't take but a few days to figure out if this user is serious or not. --Jayron32 19:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Contribution surveyor
There used to be a tool called Contribution surveyor that counted up the sizes of an editor's additions and deletions, separated out by article. It appears to be busted, at least as of last night, and its author has been gone for years. Is there any kind of replacement for it? I haven't used it in a while so haven't been following developments. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- It was formally taken over by the WMF. The source code is publicly available, but I don't know how much work is necessary to get it to run (1) on the current toolserver or (2) some other hosting platform. If it's really important, I have some code lying around that is an imperfect substitute. MER-C 22:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, I might try to run the Github code, or if your code is available someplace public I might give it a try. Somehow I had thought Contribution Surveyor used database access. If it's just an API client then I can run it or something like it. The thing I wanted to check isn't super-important so I won't ask you to run it for me. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the source, it does appear to use database access. SQLQuery me! 01:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Come to think about it, this looks like something I can replace (with a 40,000 edit hard cap). Don't expect to see anything in the near future, I have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. MER-C 21:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the source, it does appear to use database access. SQLQuery me! 01:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was looking at converting it over to tools:, but it would be 2 weeks minimum before I could start any work right now. SQLQuery me! 21:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks both of you. I could conceivably also contribute code at some point, and I have some code currently that could be modified for this purpose. But I couldn't be involved in operating it. Someone else would have to deal with toolserver or whatever they call it now. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this is at ANI (took me ages to find it); wouldn't WP:VPT be a better place for it? It is pretty much a disaster not having this tool available for copyright clean-up – I'm trying to evaluate a potential CCI, and can't get the list of contribs that would allow me to start doing that. Can we assume that no-one has edited the code for the tool? And if so, that someone has made a change somewhere else that broke the tool? If so, perhaps we could ask the WMF to identify that change and undo it (or fix the tool, which would do just as well). Which WMF editor is most likely to be prepared to do something about this? Jalexander-WMF, is this something that you could help with or offer advice on? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- For the record I'm happy to look into what I/we can do here. We're in all-staff meetings this week which makes it tough for me to look today but I'll try to review either this weekend or early in the week. If it gets archived here feel free to move to my talk page or ping me elsewhere. Jalexander--WMF 19:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I may have something by Sunday as well. MER-C 19:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why this is at ANI (took me ages to find it); wouldn't WP:VPT be a better place for it? It is pretty much a disaster not having this tool available for copyright clean-up – I'm trying to evaluate a potential CCI, and can't get the list of contribs that would allow me to start doing that. Can we assume that no-one has edited the code for the tool? And if so, that someone has made a change somewhere else that broke the tool? If so, perhaps we could ask the WMF to identify that change and undo it (or fix the tool, which would do just as well). Which WMF editor is most likely to be prepared to do something about this? Jalexander-WMF, is this something that you could help with or offer advice on? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
So, I have a minimum viable product at [6]. TODO: date range selection. I don't think ignoring reverts reliably would be viable without database access. MER-C 19:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Excellent! Thank you so much, MER-C! Tested (on a very brief edit history) with success. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, I still want the WMF get the old contribution surveyor up again -- there's only so much I can do without direct database access. This wasn't a waste of my time because we (obviously!) need a backup on a non-WMF server. MER-C 20:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for putting up your version! I can tell you that the old contribution surveyor didn't always ignore reverts, fwiw. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 07:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, I still want the WMF get the old contribution surveyor up again -- there's only so much I can do without direct database access. This wasn't a waste of my time because we (obviously!) need a backup on a non-WMF server. MER-C 20:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted Article BLP on UserPage
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am concerned about the existence of User:Inexpiable/Jerome Ersland - this was an article originally deleted under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Ersland and deleted quite quickly as the subject fails WP:Notability and also the article had issues with POV, BLP, and OR. Following the article's deletion, this post was made, then the article subsequently restored on a user page. The user making the request promised to work on the article and improve it. This was never done and the article has existed on this user page for nearly two years. My main concern here is that the restoration of this article is an attempt to keep Jerome Ersland's information on Wikipedia probably for the status of "having a Wikipedia article" but also there are some real world concerns here relating to Ersland being in prison and attempting to appeal his sentence. This concern is made doubly so by the article referencing the Jerome Ersland support page as one of its "sources" [7]. The way this article has been "nestled away" on a user page really concerns me as I think there is more going on here and that this breaks our rules about WP:BLP, if not several others. Can an administrator please review this situation. -O.R.Comms 17:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in the case anymore, delete the article it's not a notable enough case. I've deleted the stuff on the page you're referring to and have no interest in making a new page for it. Inexpiable (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
IRC
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi,
I've just been banned from the #wikipedia-en-help chat thing in IRC. I did absolutely nothing wrong, I helped users - giving good advice, in accord with all Wikipedia rules.
Is there anything I can do to appeal the ban?
I was banned by "Waggie" apparently.
I've tried speaking to that user, but have had no response.
I would like to continue talking there - in particular, a user was asking about their draft about a motorcycle, and I was helping them make it more suitable for inclusion.
Thanks, 86.20.193.222 (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Mind logging in to your actual Wikipedia account? —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Jeske, I'll comment in IRC.
- For info, here is more IRC discussion;
(Redacted) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict):Given IRC logs should not be posted here, I'll say this: you were being patently unhelpful and rude to a helpee which resulted in that helpee then getting frustrated and rude themselves. You've refused to work with other helpers and in fact, have been banned previously for this exact same behavior. This isn't an AN problem, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish here. But good luck with whatever your crusade is. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks.
- I tried to appeal, and got further 'banned'. Apparently, we cannot even talk about these things - which seems the antithesis of Wikipedia.
(Redacted) 86.20.193.222 (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- As you were in the room and can read, the top of each WMF channel explicitly states "No public logging" yet you've posted the logs here, publicly. I'd imagine that's the reason for your ban. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
For those interested in background info: Wikipedia talk:IRC/wikipedia-en-help/Archive 1. Killiondude (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: The IP was an evading banned editor. GoodDay (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- @GoodDay (or whoever), the IP was recently blocked for ban evasion but then unblocked on another admin's assurances that they were not the banned editor. Are they a different banned editor? Is there any chance someone can elaborate on this at all, or is it private info? Please email me if necessary. (courtesy ping Yamla and Huon) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Consider it a +12 year veteran Wikipedian's intuition. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- The IP belongs to another editor who (until these events) was neither blocked nor banned. Personally I would consider the use of an IP in this way an attempt to evade scrutiny, particularly if it's used to edit-war about oversightable content. I'm a little squeamish about publicly connecting IP and username, though it seems pretty much an open secret at this point. If you consider it important enough, I can either provide the information in private, or maybe Courcelles, who knows the details, can weigh in on whether the person's actions on-wiki are sufficient to make me publishing the connection "not outing". Huon (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Huon: Judging whether something is an "open secret" or not is fraught with peril in regards to how open they really are, and, anyways, the global privacy policy pretty much dictates keeping mouths shut unless you're damned sure you can talk. In this case, I'd rather not say anything to non-CUs than end up explaining myself to the Ombudsmen... Courcelles (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- The IP belongs to another editor who (until these events) was neither blocked nor banned. Personally I would consider the use of an IP in this way an attempt to evade scrutiny, particularly if it's used to edit-war about oversightable content. I'm a little squeamish about publicly connecting IP and username, though it seems pretty much an open secret at this point. If you consider it important enough, I can either provide the information in private, or maybe Courcelles, who knows the details, can weigh in on whether the person's actions on-wiki are sufficient to make me publishing the connection "not outing". Huon (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Consider it a +12 year veteran Wikipedian's intuition. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Please restore link
to thread above for an I-Ban. We hope (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you're asking for. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I reposted here as the link isn't working since the mass revdel. We hope (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- 22:28, 24 January 2018 (diff | hist) . . (+2,410) . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (→I-Ban request: new section) We hope (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Its struck on my contribuions page. We hope (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I had to oversight a whole bunch of revisions, for an unrelated reason. While you couldn't link to a diff of your post (and it was technically not possible for me to restore it), you could still link to the section, which was never deleted. Or, you could do what you did below, that works too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- The odd thing is that the post itself remained online here but the link to it was struck and wouldn't work. I reposted the original request below. We hope (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's not odd, that's how revdel and suppression work; I can explain more on your talk if you want, but I always imagine most people's eyes glazing over and them giving me the "I could not possibly care less" vibe when I start explaining the minutiae. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- The odd thing is that the post itself remained online here but the link to it was struck and wouldn't work. I reposted the original request below. We hope (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I had to oversight a whole bunch of revisions, for an unrelated reason. While you couldn't link to a diff of your post (and it was technically not possible for me to restore it), you could still link to the section, which was never deleted. Or, you could do what you did below, that works too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I-Ban request
Can someone here convince User:Volvlogia to try being civil? This stems from the thread he opened at ANI yesterday. When no one removed this polemic from his user page I did saying he could take me to ANI about it. When he continued altering my comments here, I posted to his talk page about 3RR and not altering others' comments. He then posted to my talk page to let me know "You are a hypocrite".
Apparently for removing the previous polemic, he posted more directed at me: "Censorship, served hot and fresh by we hope!" The thread about 3RR was then posted to ANI with the following note: "WH posted on my talk page, don't know why he was too scared to say it here, but here's the exchange." Today he removed my post from another editor's talk page and pinged me (not knowing he's muted) with the comment "{WP:POLEMIC. I think {{ping:we hope}} can agree there's precedent)".
The matter went from ANI to ArbCom yesterday. I've never been in contact with this editor before he started the ANI thread. Since then it's been almost continual harassment and personal attacks apparently because I don't see things his way. I would like a one-way I-Ban to stop the harassment directed at me by the editor. We hope (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- This seems to me like an attempt to distract from the larger issue a hand: the ArbCom debate. I'll cooperate with discussion here, but I don't think my behavior is at all comparable to Cassianto's, in scale or scope. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- No-it's an attempt to stop your unwarranted PAs and harassment which is fully documented in the links above. We hope (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Stop bringing others into this who have nothing to do with this issue-it's YOU and your attacks/polemics and harassment we're here to discuss. We hope (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have no desire to speak to you. I had no initial intention of speaking to you. The issue I raised which started this is with Cassianto, I have no desire to speak with you outside of the context of this discussion. I hope that this is the last time we exchange messages, I have no intention of interacting with you. I have never targeted you, only responded. Please do not respond to me, we can both let it go and allow the ArbCom debate to continue. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- So why all of the above if you want nothing to do with me? I certainly feel the same about you but I've not done any of the things you have. I want a formal I-Ban, not just this "agreement". We hope (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- "...I've not done any of the things you have." You accuse me of improperly posting a polemic on my talk page. In frustration, I accused you of censorship. Here are two instances of you speaking negatively of me in similar ways. You posted a polemic on Cassianto's talk page describing me as a "Tinfoil Hat" wearer. Later, you posted on Serial Number 54921's talk page a post against me, which I took issue with, as you took issue with my accusing you of censorship. In addition, "I posted to his talk page about 3RR and not altering others' comments.", here you are altering a comment to add {{RPA}}, which spurred my editing of your comment with {{RPA}}. This can hopefully be my final response to this inquiry, unless an admin requests otherwise.--Volvlogia (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Again-posting polemics like that is against the rules; you saw fit to post two of them. The post on Cassianto's page has no names connected with it. What you have been doing refers to people BY NAME. Warning you about 3RR and about refactoring comments of others which are also in the rules caused you to post this on my talk page to inform me I was a hypocrite. There are also no names connected with the post you removed on someone else's talk page. It's against the rules to remove someone else's posts from anywhere but your OWN talk page. You also tried pinging me but you're muted. Not adding "nowiki /nowiki" to the ping template results in a red link-and it was the ping template {{ping:we hope}}. When the second polemic was brought up at ANI an admin removed it from your user page. When you removed my post from another editor's talk page, you were warned by an admin to stop. It's of no concern to me whether you continue responding here or not-what is of concern is that your incivility/polemics and harassment directed at me do--with a formal I-Ban. We hope (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- "...I've not done any of the things you have." You accuse me of improperly posting a polemic on my talk page. In frustration, I accused you of censorship. Here are two instances of you speaking negatively of me in similar ways. You posted a polemic on Cassianto's talk page describing me as a "Tinfoil Hat" wearer. Later, you posted on Serial Number 54921's talk page a post against me, which I took issue with, as you took issue with my accusing you of censorship. In addition, "I posted to his talk page about 3RR and not altering others' comments.", here you are altering a comment to add {{RPA}}, which spurred my editing of your comment with {{RPA}}. This can hopefully be my final response to this inquiry, unless an admin requests otherwise.--Volvlogia (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- So why all of the above if you want nothing to do with me? I certainly feel the same about you but I've not done any of the things you have. I want a formal I-Ban, not just this "agreement". We hope (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have no desire to speak to you. I had no initial intention of speaking to you. The issue I raised which started this is with Cassianto, I have no desire to speak with you outside of the context of this discussion. I hope that this is the last time we exchange messages, I have no intention of interacting with you. I have never targeted you, only responded. Please do not respond to me, we can both let it go and allow the ArbCom debate to continue. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Stop bringing others into this who have nothing to do with this issue-it's YOU and your attacks/polemics and harassment we're here to discuss. We hope (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- No-it's an attempt to stop your unwarranted PAs and harassment which is fully documented in the links above. We hope (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
So, you alter coments on their user page, you give them 3RR warnings on their talk page, you object to the removal of your blatant personal attack against them here, and Volvlogia is the one needing an I-Ban? I guess it's best to simply let the ArbCom request deal with this, but otherwise I see you as a much more likely target for a one-way interaction ban than Volvlogia. Fram (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I removed polemic against another editor from their user page. Don't worry-I'll be out of here when ArbCom is done; only here for that. We hope (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- But you are requesting an interaction ban when there has hardly been any interaction, and most or all of it has been initiated by you, like here. When they leave the mandatory ArbCom notice at another user's talk page[9], you are there 3 minutes later to canvass for an interaction ban[10]. Basically, you are following Volvlogia around, stirring up trouble against them, and trying to make them look bad. Drawing attention to such behaviour during an ArbCom case where you are a party seems very unwise to me. Fram (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- As I said, don't worry about it as I'll be gone when ArbCom is over. We hope (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- ...which is something you have claimed on your userpage since 2016, and repeated on your talk page mid 2017. And which of course doesn't give you a free pass to ask for an interaction ban against someone who has hardly interacted with you and where you are the party who follows the other around. Fram (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- There's a limit to the times when you can the benefit of the doubt and try again. That account is overdrawn now. Posting to my talk page to call my attention to a PA is hardly following someone around. Being pinged by that person is also hardly following someone around. We hope (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- ...which is something you have claimed on your userpage since 2016, and repeated on your talk page mid 2017. And which of course doesn't give you a free pass to ask for an interaction ban against someone who has hardly interacted with you and where you are the party who follows the other around. Fram (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- As I said, don't worry about it as I'll be gone when ArbCom is over. We hope (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- But you are requesting an interaction ban when there has hardly been any interaction, and most or all of it has been initiated by you, like here. When they leave the mandatory ArbCom notice at another user's talk page[9], you are there 3 minutes later to canvass for an interaction ban[10]. Basically, you are following Volvlogia around, stirring up trouble against them, and trying to make them look bad. Drawing attention to such behaviour during an ArbCom case where you are a party seems very unwise to me. Fram (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- "There's a limit to the times when you can the benefit of the doubt and try again. That account is overdrawn now." Indeed. Evidence of you following them around is given above. Evidence of you trying to rally others to cause trouble for them is given above. This I-ban request is a farce. Boomerang block applied (for 1 day only, since you had a clean block log). Fram (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Belated comment: Actually WP:POLEMIC is not at all triggered by a diff-pile intended for noticeboard use: "
The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner.
" (emphasis in original). That was unmistakably the case here, given the ANI then the RfArb. While the editor clearly needs to obtain some additional clue (especially in the WP:KETTLE direction), and the snarky comment atop this diff-pile was uncalled-for, the obvious solution at that page would have been removing the snarky comment per WP:NPA and leaving it alone otherwise; there's clear precedent. It's not one editor's job to decide whether another editor's diffs are meaningful or being interpreted correctly; that's the collective job of the noticeboard to which they're taken. The community is actually quite tolerant of such diff-piles, and quite liberal in interpretation of "timely manner". See, e.g.: [11] where a diff-pile just like this was retained because it was likely to be used at a noticeboard (later deleted in a second MfD after it was stale); [12] another diff-pile kept despite the fact it was a years-running page that often wasn't actually being used for noticeboard purposes (it was later speedied by its author); [13] where a freaky conspiracy-theory rant is kept despite attacking entire classes of WP editors and no possibility of serving any noticeboard or encyclopedic/collaboration purpose, while also being a page of a defunct user (compromised account) anyway; and so on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC) - Prior to Fram's block, I was in discussion with User:We hope about the suitability of their user page. Do others users agree that in its current state it contravenes the spirit of Remedy 5 of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes, which has "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes..."? As regards the block, I can't disagree with it but I might have given a warning/chance to retract first. --John (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- The content of User:We hope's user page is fine. There is nothing indecorous or uncivil about it. You could maybe, if you're really really reaching, say "This user is against editors who cry wolf" is not that helpful, but honestly, I think we should all be against editors who cry wolf. That's certainly not indecorous or uncivil. fish&karate 12:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I was more concerned with the picture of the turd comparing it to an infobox. Normally speaking I am not prudish about this sort of thing but I think this may contravene the quoted section of the remedy. --John (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's a polished golden turd, so I guess it's making an inference about valuing aesthetics over content. Crude, yes, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to make a fuss about it, and not particularly necessary. fish&karate
- Well, thanks for your opinion. If you think it adds to our encyclopedic purpose to display a picture of a turd and compare it with an infobox, which most of our articles have, when we have an existing Arbcom remedy that states "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes..." and another related case ongoing, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. Maybe AE is a better place for this discussion anyway. --John (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's a polished golden turd, so I guess it's making an inference about valuing aesthetics over content. Crude, yes, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to make a fuss about it, and not particularly necessary. fish&karate
- I was more concerned with the picture of the turd comparing it to an infobox. Normally speaking I am not prudish about this sort of thing but I think this may contravene the quoted section of the remedy. --John (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- The content of User:We hope's user page is fine. There is nothing indecorous or uncivil about it. You could maybe, if you're really really reaching, say "This user is against editors who cry wolf" is not that helpful, but honestly, I think we should all be against editors who cry wolf. That's certainly not indecorous or uncivil. fish&karate 12:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Sosnowiec article fiction
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Referring to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Poeticbent_reported_by_User:83.29.46.96_(Result:_Semi) and based on Talk:Sosnowiec#Silesian_Metropolis I demand taking down Sosnowiec article blockade and/or reverting fiction forced by User:Poeticbent here: [14].--83.10.5.144 (talk) 02:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Please approve the Freshdesk page
Hi admin,
I changed the freshdesk page with lots of citation. Please review and approve it.
Have a nice day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathivathan (talk • contribs)
- (Non-administrator comment) The Freshdesk page was last deleted and salted in December 2016. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Hmm..David, per Draft:Freshdesk, why a request for un-salting ought to be made at AN? Salting is almost always done to get the content vetted through AFC and AFAIK, only an AFC reviewer/some long-standing-user can get it mainspaced.Also, IMO, DRV is a better venue!Winged BladesGodric 11:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @David.moreno72: just in case you don't know of this discussion about your recommendation. MPS1992 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- yeah, this isn’t where requests for unprotection go. Normally you start with the protecting admin, (in this case @Joyous!: then go to the relvant section at WP:RFPP if they ae unavailable or you don’t like their reply. Beeblebrox (talk)
- Thanks everyone for the advice. Sorry for the confusion and your wasted time. I rarely have had to deal with salted pages that require administrator access. The entry at WP:SALT says 'Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content should either contact an administrator (preferably the protecting administrator)', and I thought WP:AN was the best noticeboard to contact an administrator to the issue. Perhaps the WP:SALT page should be clarified. The following is my recommended change.
Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content should either contact the protecting administrator, file a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, or use the deletion review process.
- I will let the editor know of the correct course of action. Thank you David.moreno72 00:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Not enough Citations
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am not an admin, but (on the English wikipedia) I found the page for a city in the Netherlands called Terneuzen, it bearly has any citations. can you maybe put a notice there, or find some citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigginator1 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Pigginator1: Sorry, misunderstood. I refer you to WP:BEBOLD, WP:SOFIXIT even :) but I'll have a look. Incidentally, this is not the place to request content alterations: Talk:Terneuzen is the place for this particular article. Take care! >SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Abusive behavior and rule violations by user Muboshgu
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
I live in the Charlottesville area and know several of the people related to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. My friends and I have tried to go into several associated pages, including the ones for Wes Bellamy and Jason Kessler, to add context, citations and edits. However, whenever we add anything user Muboshgu comes in within an hour of the edit and undoes it. It's very frustrating because this personal clearly has agenda it's trying to enforce on these pages.
In the Muboshgu's user talk page you can see him/her saying things to other users he disagrees with like, "It wasn't a threat. It was a promise."
In the talk page on Jason Kessler, which Muboshgu seems to have created, he's described as using, "an angry and aggressive tone" with those who disagree. This is another page which Muboshgu serial unedits any changes he doesn't like. There are extremely defamatory statements on that page which shouldn't be allowed on the bio of a living person. For instance, Kessler has never claimed to be a "white nationalist" but the article describes him as such. It also lays blame for the post-rally car incident at his feet when this is something that has never been claimed in any criminal proceeding. In fact there are lawsuits involving whether the City of Charlottesville's stand down order was responsible for the chaos.
I'm asking for user Muboshgu to be sanctioned for abusive behavior and vandalism and be banned from editing pages related to Unite the Right and Charlottesville.
Regards,
Dominance Hierarchy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominance Hierarchy (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please do not forum shop. You have already raised this at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Help_with_Disruptive_User. DuncanHill (talk) 21:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've removed the EA thread. There were no replies there, and this seems like the better page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- See the Big Red Notice near the top of this page. You are required to notify the other user of this discussion. I have done it for you this time, please do not overlook this again. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Reply The only agendas I'm following are WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Forum shopping with items taken out of context is not the best way to get the resolution you're working towards. You should've sent me a message on my talk page, where I could have elaborated beyond the character limit of an edit summary. Cheers. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- (e/c) All I see so far from looking at Muboshgu's edits to those pages are reverts of some POV edits of yours. You should discuss on the articles' talk pages if there is anything in them worth rewording and saving. If there are actual examples of abusive behavior, you need to provide diffs (read the link if you don't know what "diffs" are). He's an admin here, so calling it "vandalism" makes you look silly. I'm also concerned about your user name (although it provides useful insight) and your reference to "My friends and I" trying to edit something, but at this stage I'm not going to look into this further. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Dominance Hierarchy, editing on Wikipedia is more complex than most people think. You might be well served to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. — Maile (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note that
DHDominance Hierarchy has now posted to BLPN, claiming to be Jason Kessler. Perhaps this thread should be closed too, and the one at BLPN left open to actually address any article problems? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)- When two editors with the initials "DH" have posted in a thread, it is helpful (and less surprising to at least one of them), to use their actual usernames instead of their undifferentiated initials. Thank you :) DuncanHill (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- ooops. sorry. fixed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- When two editors with the initials "DH" have posted in a thread, it is helpful (and less surprising to at least one of them), to use their actual usernames instead of their undifferentiated initials. Thank you :) DuncanHill (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear Staff,
I am a sysop of Vietnamese Wikipedia. There is a football match happening on Jan 27 2018, between Vietnam and Uzbekistan in AFC U23 Tournament. Therefore, a huge number of fans from Vietnam may come to English Wikipedia and vandalize many articles. I need you block (or semi-block) these articles:
- Ma Ning (referee) (the referee of the match)
- Ma Ning
- Vietnam national under-23 football team
- Park Hang-seo (the coach of Vietnam team)
- Nguyễn Công Phượng
- Lương Xuân Trường
- 2018 AFC U-23 Championship
- Hà Đức Chinh
- Nguyễn Quang Hải (footballer, born 1997)
- Bùi Tiến Dũng (footballer, born 1997)
Besides, I hope you follow up relevant articles. Thanks! Alphama (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Alphama: (Non-administrator comment) Pages are not preemptively protected. Sorry. !dave 07:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Community sanction block review and question about process
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A couple days ago, admin Coffee blocked user Seraphim System (talk · contribs) as a remedy under the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL general sanctions. I'm not arguing with the block and I've already declined an unblock request on the user's talk page, but I have a question about proper procedure here.
I noticed today while reviewing the general sanctions page that there has been no notification to Seraphim System logged on the page. Coffee and several other users have argued on Seraphim System's talk page that she was adequately warned in the form of an editnotice on the article, banner on the article's talk page, and messages left on her user talk, and I declined her unblock request on that basis, but it seems nobody has ever used the proper sanction notice template nor logged a notification in the sanctions log. Therefore, the recently updated discretionary sanctions awareness criteria were not met. I'm very much not a fan of overturning good-faith blocks purely on technicalities, but is this block invalid? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: This was a community sanction. Not a discretionary sanction. They fall under entirely different rules. WP:AC/DS does not apply here. You should read what does apply here (and the authority for the block): WP:GS/SCW&ISIL#1RR:
Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
.You also should not have opened this thread without discussing this with me first. As you obviously did not know what you were talking about before coming here. I don't appreciate this at all, especially when you declined an unblock request without even knowing why the block was allowed/needed.— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)- @Ivanvector: Seriously familiarize yourself with WP:GS and the difference between that and WP:AC/DS. You've made me look like an idiot even though I did exactly what the community demands. I'm livid right now. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, the ISIL & Syrian War sanctions are community authorized ones, the awareness requirements of the Arbitration Committee authorized ones do not apply. I believe that Wikipedia:GS/SCW&ISIL is the procedure for the sanctions discussed here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- (ec) The provisions at WP:AC/DS#aware.aware don't apply as this is a community sanction and not arbitration-related discretionary sanctions. The text of the remedy in question (1RR) explicitly states that there is no requirement for an editor to be notified before action is taken. GoldenRing (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. That pages states
In addition a one revert rule, which does not require notice...
TonyBallioni (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I edit-conflicted with everyone above other than Coffee's first post. Wikipedia:General sanctions says under the heading "Process", subheading "Community sanctions": "[a]ny editor may make another editor aware of the sanctions, and then log the notification," and "[f]ull procedures for issuing notifications mirror those of Arbitration Committee sanctions, as described [wikilink to WP:AC/DS]". However I also see that the 1RR remedy on the community sanctions page says that it "does not require notice", and I hadn't seen that before so thank you for pointing it out. I guess my question then is not for you but for the community: is a discretionary sanction that applies whether or not a user is aware of it reasonable? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- The community came to that consensus about 1RR a long time ago, so I believe the answer to your question is yes. That's why as an administrator I had any authority to place the block: community consensus existed for it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, the issue is that the user was aware in the normal sense of the term (and not the pseudo-legal way it is used in the AC/DS, etc.) because they had been warned about it specifically for the article in question. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware of that and not arguing that point, that diff of notification was central to my declining the unblock request. It was observed in discussion of the unblock request that our general sanctions are a bewildering labyrinth of confusing, arbitrary, and sometimes contradictory rules and procedures (my words) and this discussion isn't really helping with that. Now I find out there are "gotchas" like this where a user editing in good faith is simply expected to be aware of the restrictions in place when they conflict with standard best practice (3RR is policy) at peril of being blocked without warning. This is not good. There's nothing about Coffee's block that I can argue with and I'm really not meaning to, but this situation is not good. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think that is a fair point, especially given the recent ARCA on this. I think the block should stand though, because in this case the user was undoubtably aware, even though not required to be. I also think one of the issues is that everyone knows about the templates for AC/DS but not GS, which in some ways would make 1RR unenforceable if there was such a strict requirement. Perhaps a simpler version of the awareness criteria could be adopted for 1RR. Something like
For 1RR, users must be notified that pages are under that restriction on their talk page. Notifying the user with the awareness template is preferred, but is not required.
TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC) - Yeah the GS wording seems much more confusing than DS; seems better to either make it follow with DS procedure or IAR it and somehow make it a DS. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think that is a fair point, especially given the recent ARCA on this. I think the block should stand though, because in this case the user was undoubtably aware, even though not required to be. I also think one of the issues is that everyone knows about the templates for AC/DS but not GS, which in some ways would make 1RR unenforceable if there was such a strict requirement. Perhaps a simpler version of the awareness criteria could be adopted for 1RR. Something like
- Yes, I'm aware of that and not arguing that point, that diff of notification was central to my declining the unblock request. It was observed in discussion of the unblock request that our general sanctions are a bewildering labyrinth of confusing, arbitrary, and sometimes contradictory rules and procedures (my words) and this discussion isn't really helping with that. Now I find out there are "gotchas" like this where a user editing in good faith is simply expected to be aware of the restrictions in place when they conflict with standard best practice (3RR is policy) at peril of being blocked without warning. This is not good. There's nothing about Coffee's block that I can argue with and I'm really not meaning to, but this situation is not good. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. That pages states
This is not about Coffee. It is about the policies and procedures
|
---|
I've seen Coffee's name come up regularly in the last few days regarding questionable administrative actions. Coffee - would you consider a less aggressive approach, for lack of a better description. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
|
- Hatting the above, as it was going off-topic in a rather quick fashion. Carry on. Primefac (talk) 15:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone, you've given me some points to think about. Apologies to Coffee for initially framing my query in a way that probably contributed negatively to an already stressful situation exacerbated by my own ignorance, but thanks for your insight nonetheless. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: And my apologies for being so quick tempered about being brought here for no good reason. I'm sure now that you can see why I feel very attacked everytime a thread like this opens though... several people out there want my bit removed (just because they've been sanctioned by, or know someone who has been sanctioned by me). No one ever gives two shits about my emotions here, and practically no one realizes I'm capable of change. @Volunteer Marek: is the only person I can truly point to who gave me the opportunity to improve, and we've had a decent working relationship ever since. Why can't everyone stop treating me like this is 2009? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I feel as though my inimitable wisdom is sorely needed here. And so, with all the gravitas at my command, I say: happy Friday everyone! Dumuzid (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'll drink to that! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Request review of closure at Disk storage
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is a request to review the close at Disk Storage to determine whether the closer incorrectly declared "rough consensus" in violation of both guidelines and policy. I discussed this with the closer here. This dispute is regarding changing style in an existing article.
Links to previous pertinent discussions
- Requests for arbitration/Sortan, Final Decision, 5.1.2 Preferred styles
- Should MOS cover "data is" vs. "data are"?
The following links are provided to demonstrate that style discussions are frequent within Wiki space, sometimes protracted and with outcomes both consistent and inconsistent with the above principle. They are offered not for precidence but to establish the necessity for a careful examnination of this RfC closure.
- Several of the 1037 discussions of Data is vs Data are in article talk pages that demonstrate this is a pervasive style issue
- Other such style issues in article talk pages
Requested actions
This closure should be changed based upon deviations from any one of the following policies and guideline.
- Confirm that the MOS:STYLERET guideline's requirement for consensus on a "substantial reason" applies to individual articles
- Based upon failure to achieve consensus policy on any subtantial reason for change in style, revise the closure at Disk Storage from "rough consensus" to "no consensus" and therby allow reversion of the article to its original style.
- In the alternative, declare the causal RfC invalid in light of existing Arbitration Committee policy decision in Soltan.
Request review of RfC closure at Disk storage
This dispute is regarding the use of "data is" versus "data are" in a Wikipedia article. This is a matter of style as established by multiple reliable sources and by the undisupted facts that both styles are used in thousands of Wikipedia articles, without context and rarely together. Absent context the tense of the noun data is ambiguous and it is a matter style whether it is paired with a singular or plural verb.
STYLERET's substantial reason must apply to articles
MOS:STYLERET states an Arbitration Committee principle that existing acceptable styles be retained:
"unless there is some substantial reason for the change."
(Emphasis added)
The closer and I actually agree that the arbitration cases as well as the STYLERET guidelines reflect the community's general distaste for individuals broadly edit warring/mass-converting things in what's otherwise perceived by many to be color of the bikeshed disagreements. However, that is exactly what he has allowed by his finding of "rough consensus" in this case.
The closer's admitted interpretation of MOS:STYLERET as allowing "a local consensus of people saying "I want it (this) way" on a flexible MOS issue" ... " is the "good" or "substantial" reason" eviserates the guideline by ascribing no meaning to the requirement for consensus on any substantial reason. He seems to think it applies mainly broad edit waring and mass conversions but does not apply to an indvidual article. Under this interpretation all it takes in one article to change a style is that the IDONTLIKEIT's outnumber the ILIKEIT's. This issue arrises with not with just ambiguous mass nouns (e.g. data, media) but also in spelling (e.g., multiplexor, adaptor) and I am sure other style issues. My examination of article talk pages suggests the data is/are issues arrise almost daily throught wiki space; I think I first encountered it in 2009.
It is partially my fault that we wasted several months and over 70 KiB on this since in my intial response to the initial proponent (the "Advocate") I pointed to the MOS with out specifically identifying STYLERET. Had the Advocate structured the Rfc in terms of is there a substantial reason for the change the discussion would been different with the possibility of a different outcome.
Accordingly I request a clear statement that contrary to the closers's interpretation, consensus must be reached on a substantial reason for any style change in an article.
No concensus on a substantial reason
In all there were 120 edits by 17 editors during the discussion amounting to almost 68 kBytes of discussion; however once MOS:STYLERET was invoked only 6 editors participated and the vote became 3-2-1 with 91% of the discussion from two editors (statistics below). This is really the dispute between two editors over style which absent a substantial reason for a change to the article is precluded by STYLERET.
The closer has misapplied MOS:STYLERET in declaring rough consensus on the basis of a 9-3-4 vote which was mostly taken prior to invoking STYLERET. Instead as required by the rough consensus guideline he should have looked at the strength of the underlying arguments and any policy for a consensus on the MOS:STYLERET requirement for a substantial reason for making a style change. The discussion began on 15 Oct 2017 but unfortunately the STYLERET guideline was not invoked until Nov 18, 2017 late in the discussion rendering most if not all of the prior discussion less than substantial. For example, this entry on 10/29 is basically ILIKE "data is":
Data is - I don't think we could reasonably say "data are" here. It just sounds odd, because it isn't something that is really countable. For example, you wouldn't know what I am saying if I said 100 kilos of data are. That's because "data" isn't a valid unit. Thus, it should be treated as a mass noun. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
- Most would consider 100 kilos of data to be 100 KiB or kB.
- This was RileyBugz's only edit and there was no discussion to qualify this statement as a "substantial reason"
Once STYLERET was introduced the discussion amounted to only 11 edits totaling less than 10 kB by only 6 editors of which 91% was by the two opposing editors who started this discusion. Three new editors voted 2-1-0 after STYLERET was invoked but they did not further participate in the discussion; one admitting ILIKEIT,
- The thousands of such pretentious articles in Wikipedia hardly makes this a substantial reason.
None of the three new votes participated in the discussion.
The Advocate of this change then provided four reasons he believed to be substantial and I rebutted them. There was no further discussion. The statistics and reading of the edits show that after STLYERET was invoked the discussion failed to meet the requirements of the consensus policy. This very limited group of editors at this place and time cannot override the consensus of the 19 editors who contributed to the article nor the thousands of editors who use and have used "data are" in thousands of articles.
Accordingly I request the close summary be changed to no consensus.
No concensus at all
"Concensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority) ..." See: Concensus by soliciting outside opinions.
It should be noted that I am the only editor involved in the discussion who edited the article prior to the start of this discussion. The proponent of this style change has never edited the article, he alone provided 52% of the discussion edits which when combined with my 30% results in our dialog amounting to 82% of the dicussion.
Of the 17 editors participating 8 made only one edit and another 3 made only 2 edits; essentially voting without participating in discussion at all.
The lack of a poll after discussion further shows that there was no determination of the quality of the arguments.
These statistics alone justify a closure wit no consensus due to insufficient discussion and mostly uninvolved editors.
Already decided by the Arbitration Committee
The Arbitration Committee has already ruled that editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike. The statistics below as further discussed in section 3.2 demonstrate that the Advocate prefers "data is" while I prefer in this case "data are" - exactly the situation covered by this ruling.
Accordingly I request the closure status be changed to "Rfc rejected as not in accordance with policy"
Additional action
When I attempted to bring this issue to MOS it was rejected therein with the conclusion it was already coverred by STYLERET. I believe this to be true but it seems that the limited information therein can lead to misunderstandings. A quick search of article talk pages shows over three thousand discussions of style issues (see statistics below). To help reduce the amount of unnecessary future discussion I intend to propose the MOS be modificatied to expand STYLERET so as make clearer the types of sytles covered and the degree of consensus necessary to agree upon a substantial reason.
For example, it may be desireable to require a poll after discussion to determine the degree of consensus on each of the proposed substantial reasons.
A statement in this adminstrative review suggesting improvements would be appreciated.
Summary
The "rough consensus" closure of the RfC to style change of instances of "data are" into "data is" in the Disk Storage article was in viotation of a number of policy statements and Wikipedia guidelines. The proper closure is "no consensus" in which the article should be reverted. MOS:STYLERET should be improved to better define its subject material and the degree of discussion necesssary to achieve consensus on any substantial reason to justify a change in style.
Respectively submitted for administrative review: Tom94022 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Extended content
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
STATISTICS
|
I've collapsed the statistics, because otherwise it's not obvious where the request-for-review ends. Nyttend (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Just to say that (based on his contribution history -- haven't actually gone deeper) the OP has been a steady contributor in a significant area, so let's handled this in a way that won't discourage him from continuing that work. EEng 21:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've looked at the close, and I'm inclined to agree with the closer.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse close - To overturn a formal consensus from an RfC is an exceptional request. Upon reviewing the discussion, the close appears to be the most accurate and reasonable reading of consensus. STYLERET is just the common sense, general rule not to change one correct style to another without reason, because it will result in unnecessary disputes between editors. Same concept as WP:ENGVAR. If there's a been formal consensus to style something a specific way, then that does constitute the "substantial reason". Obviously if the community needs to establish an exception to STYLERET via a formal consensus in which community input is openly solicited, we are allowed to do so. Two editors agreeing on a hidden talk page is one thing, but this was a formal RfC that was appropriately closed by an uninvolved administrator. Something that formal and procedurally correct should only be tossed if it directly and irreconcilably contradicts an overarching policy. I don't see that being the case. Not remotely. Swarm ♠ 21:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I guess I should have been explicit in reminding everyone that ANI doesn't entertain content disputes. Please, let's not start debating the merits here. If anyone wants to go over to the talk page linked at the top of this thread and comment there, fine. Otherwise this entire thread, except maybe the opening paragraph with link, should be collapsed. EEng 21:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think this is a very weak challenge by someone who lost a debate, but technically speaking these requests are allowed per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Swarm ♠ 22:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse close - The consensus wasn't great for one or the other however the RFC had been up for 30 days which I believe is the limit for RFCs, Anyway I fail to see the point of closing as "No Consensus" as the 2nd RFC could've been worse than the first, the closing admin did fine IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 23:29, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse close Can't see how it could have been closed any other way. Number 57 00:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse close I don't agree with the OP that STYLERET makes discussions like this one impossible, the wording of that guideline does seem to be aimed at preventing individual editors from changing articles between acceptable options. It's a big jump from that to saying that a proper RfC can't decide to do so. The close itself looks reasonable. Hut 8.5 17:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Decline review because the amount of discussion already expended to decide the purely stylistic question of "data is" vs. "data are" in one article is ridiculous. Sandstein 22:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
96.54.225.11
The IP address 96.54.225.11 has been vandalizing many pages severely, and has attacked many users many times inappropriately. I noticed that this user had several warnings and his/her talk page, and had been blocked on January 19 for 72 hours. However, apparently neither of these helped.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 02:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Never mind, an administrator blocked that IP address.--SkyGazer 512 talk / contributions / subpages 03:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done by Amorymeltzer, between the times of your 2 posts. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Page protection for repeated BLP vio
Recent edits at Bitcoin Cash highlight the need for page protection. IP's add content violating WP:BLP (calling someone a scammer or criminal). Also needed at Roger Ver (other editors asking for page protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roger_Ver#Vandalism ). prokaryotes (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- IP has been blocked. If you want page protection, WP:RFPP is the proper venue. Primefac (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#BC_and_RV prokaryotes (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
FYI - Possible troll influx
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There seems to be an off-site coordinated effort to disrupt BLP pages. Two editors have arrived at Deepak Chopra already. Details can be found in the edit summaries there. Just a heads up. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've semi-protected the page. PC1 is fine for normal vandalism, but stuff like this still sits in the history. Easier to stop them editing altogether. Primefac (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! Also, upon further review, it seems like just one troll, not meatpuppetry. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Mass deletion of pages - question of protocol
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Following the closure of an RFC wondering if we should delete all of the 444 pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations should be deleted, Beeblebrox proceeded to delete them all. The main concern that has followed (which is currently being discussed at their talk page) is whether the close of an RFC on the Village Pump is sufficient for the mass-deletion of that many pages, two of which are Featured Lists. There is also a concern that since Beeblebrox was the one that started the RFC, they should not be the one enforcing the results of the RFC.
However, I'm not particularly interested in tarring Beeblebrox for their actions, rather I'm interested in what to do about the situation as a whole. As I see it, there are two options:
- Leave the content deleted - the RFC is a consensus, and as a consensus activity there is no issue with them being speedy deleted without discussion.
- Restore the pages and either:
- Have a mass-AFD to allow non-admins and editors who were not aware of the RFC an opportunity to weigh in
- Perform some other form of not-speedy deletion (PROD?) that would let other editors contribute.
Other options will be entertained, but please try to keep the focus on the articles and what we should do about them. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- My preference would be to restore the pages and then make them redirects to the relevant airlines; which will allow for regular discussion of outcomes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- From a procedural point of view, I don't see any speedy deletion criteria that applies; this appears controversial so WP:G6 doesn't apply, and the village pump isn't listed as a venue that allows for
WP:G4Wikipedia:Deletion discussions-based deletion. That said, a consensus can ignore that (per WP:NOTBURO/WP:IAR), though as deletion is an administrative action perhaps there would need to be a consensus in favor of it here as well as the one at WP:VPP. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)- Good answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Also support restoring and redirecting as a good compromise solution.Note: I was not aware that talk page notices had not been sent and was assuming they had been. Soft-deletion via redirect isn't appropriate given that those notices were not sent. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 22:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Good answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Redirects would likely be self-referential. The articles have redlinks because of this. The RfC said nothing of the articles themselves and deleting throught the redlink warning is a problem. Any article that was referenced should not have been deleted under the RfC. --05:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- From a procedural point of view, I don't see any speedy deletion criteria that applies; this appears controversial so WP:G6 doesn't apply, and the village pump isn't listed as a venue that allows for
- My preference is that painting 400+ articles with the same brush is quite shortsighted. The lists were of various quality and, and due to the size of the airlines involved, of differing levels of importance. Restore them all, and lets have an orderly AFD process. Courcelles (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 3) While somewhat cumbersome (a bot could easily handle it though), the discussion should have been advertised on each of the pages. I don't think backroom discussions on whether a page should exist are good ideas when all you do is advertise it to a WikiProject and not to the people who have been editing the articles. I also find Beeblebrox's act of deleting them a clear violation of WP:INVOLVED. Nihlus 22:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 3) The biggest issue here is that an article reader/watcher would have had no notification of the RFC. AFD and PROD at least give notices on top of each article. A mass AFD would turn into a trainwreck very quickly, given the wide range of article quality and airline significance involved. I'd suggest a mass PROD first, followed by localized AFD's. – Train2104 (t • c) 22:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- This is more of a plane crash than a train wreck; it failed to take-off. But maybe it then crashed into a railway line too as I've now had to !vote on multiple pages with multiple edit conflicts. Ordinary editors and readers have no patience for such intricate processes and so conducting our proceedings in this way disenfranchises them. Our millions of readers need better representation and protection . Andrew D. (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Preferences aside, there was a community discussion that concluded that all of these pages should go. Speedy deletion is not relevant here as there was discussion that was quite long and more widely attended than most AFDs. Also, are we doing this here ot at WP:ANI? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with "preference", but the right people weren't informed this was happening. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- At WP:ANI please.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- Here makes the most sense, as the broader question of "Can a VP discussion be used to speedy delete" needs to be addressed in addition to the incident of the deletions. Courcelles (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- We have a process and template for mass deletions. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. I think the community expectation is that the process would be followed and deletion discussions occur in the appropriate place in the appropriate manner. WP:BUNDLE --DHeyward (talk) 05:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- If this discussion had been advertised to all the pages in the way it would have been if it had been done through AFD, then yes, OK this is sufficient and I wouldn't see any further process is necessary. The fact that a de facto AFD does not take place WP:AFD is not important - but it should meet the standards we would expect of an AFD and this process did not. The safeguards we have at AFD - such as the mandatory notification on the article - are there for a reason. And as such I find it difficult to see how we can consider these deletions appropriate without those safeguards in place.
- On the wider point, since many of this articles have been there for many years, may I suggest we consider WP:EXTERNALROT as a good reason to restore and redirect, if we accept as consensus that the content should not be here. Kahastok talk 23:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I would add in addition to notification in the right places, there also needs to be the right notification. If you AFD something, it should be obvious to anyone with a bit of experience that deletion of the article is a possible outcome. If you are simply advertising an RFC on the VP, it may not be obvious, so you need to make it clear in the notification what is being considered. Nil Einne (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Question - Why are there threads both here and on AN/I about this? Shouldn't one be closed, or the two be brought together in one place? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I asked on my talk page for an uninvolved admin to please close one or the other, but nobody’s done it yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Saw this passing through and closed the ANI discussion. I agree that AN is a better place to discuss, since it's both a review of an administrative action as the result of a RfC close and a more general discussion about whether RfCs can end in deletion of articles. ansh666 04:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I asked on my talk page for an uninvolved admin to please close one or the other, but nobody’s done it yet. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I just knew this would wind up a mess - my opinion, no a VPP discussion cannot be a mass deletion discussion. So, restore to take to AfD. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- No problem with the person starting the discussion enacting it if it has been closed affirmatively by a neutral third party. But having a deletion discussion at the VP is quite irregular; it should have been conducted at AFD. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC).
- Participated in the discussion, but agree that the closer's answer was not a free pass to delete the pages outright. The question was "should", meaning that PROD/AFD/Merge discussions should have been made, and or a discussion of how to proceed, but not immediate deletion. --Masem (t) 02:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's understandable to interpret the discussion as a vote to get rid of those pages, so I don't necessarily fault Beeblebrox. It's a little tiresome to have separate discussions about all 444 category members. Even grouping and discussing seems tedious. Grouped discussion could have taken place in the RfC, too. But if that's what everyone wants... Killiondude (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Here's an idea: Open an AfD mass nom and notify all the RfC participants with a short message explaining the situation. Alternatively, open an AfD mass nom, link to the RfC, and count the RfC comments as !votes. It's silly to consider the RfC a nullity. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- The problem with mass deletion is that the articles are all different. They have different content. The RfC was focused as if this was an airline schedule but that was mileading. Eastern Air Lines#Destinations is now a redlink to Eastern Air Lines destinations. Contrary to the premise of the RfC, therre is no maintenance of the destinations required. EA is a defunct airline and its are an encyclopedic historical list that is not changing. There is no clear way to relate the non-changing list of EA to an evolving list of an existing airline. There is no website users can go to, despite this being one of the arguments. In no event should the outcome of a VPP discussion lead to the deletion of articles. The most a VPP discussion could/should do is create an AfD criteria that could be used as a rationale to delete now and in the future. --DHeyward (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Actually this RFC has poor level of participation to effectively make this extreme decision of nuking hundreds of pages including one of Wikipedia's best lists that have passed rigor of FL processes. Moreover, the RFC closer never said there's consensus to delete all these pages, he only closed it with rationale that Wikipedia should not have them which is clearly subject to various interpretations and this is what gives the RFC initator greenlight to interpret it they way he did, because already he don't want them and this is obviously not the ideal thing to do. At best that RFC is rough consensus of 16-17 people about the fate of 444 pages which should be decided by uninvolved admins on what to proceed with. The way the RFC was framed is also fuzzy and not ideal, because it never told the participants what they're explicitly voting on. To this effect, I recommend both Restoring the pages and opening new, well-advertized RFC (like Mass AfD without listing all the pages) to ask specifically Delete or Keep and after the normal period to be closed officially and enact what ever decision reached. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't see how we jumped from these articles should not be included in Wikipedia to they are summarily deleted. They need to be looked at and determine the best course of action. The best course of action on some may be deletion, but others to to merge some content to another article and redirect, while others may be kept. There is no consensus in that RFC to delete all the articles. ~ GB fan 11:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment In addition to the articles, there were circa 600 redirects to the articles. These were deleted by AnomieBOT III on January 28 and 29. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- This is serious. The main goal of Wikipedia is the creation of content (or at least this is something that voters look closer for RFAs) and one admin tried to get rid of more than 400 articles at once. Something here is not working.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I doubt anyone would pass RfA if they advocated the use of admin tools for mass deletions in situations like this.
I'm reluctant to bring it up, but we need to consider if it is appropriate for Beeblebrox to retain the admin tools.Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 15:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Striking my comment. An arbcom case over just this incident would be an overreaction. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 19:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)- Billhpike, if you think that is needed, the correct thing to do would be to file a case request with the arbitration committee. I doubt it would be accepted, however. Beeblebrox has been acting in good faith, has allowed for community review of his actions, and does not have a history of poor judgement. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is comparatively little on Wikipedia that can be done which cannot just as easily be undone. Let's not let the blood and baseness of our natures conduct us to preposterous conclusions just yet. GMGtalk 15:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Now, now, its rather unsurprising someone said it (especially with some admins on the talk page using the INVOLVED word) -- I don't think it will go anywhere, unless it's somehow argued that the whole can't be undone. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Restore the pages and follow normal AfD procedures
The RFC at the village pump did not serve to establish consensus for mass deletion. The pages should be restored and normal AfD procedures followed. Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 04:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 04:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support It's happened enough before that we have named it Wikipedia:Glossary#Trainwreck specifically for mass deletions gone awry. See WP:BUNDLE for proper deletion process. --DHeyward (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support This was done in incredibly poor form, with poor behavior when addressed. Yes, we have all sorts of guidelines and consensuses regarding inclusion of various types of articles, but that does not mean articles under them may be deleted without particular discussion or notice on the page itself. In no way was a consensus (without participation of relevant editors) that the format doesn't belong here result in en masse deletion. Reywas92Talk 06:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support and also consider looking more closely at the actions of the admin, particularly in rejecting a very reasonable request to return some material after deletion. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support I concur with The Rambling Man's point above. The deleting admin seems to be in a hurry to get rid of the articles. Also, the very fact that none of the editors from the project commented and voiced their opinion itself makes the VP discussion invalid. — LeoFrank Talk 07:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support the village pump discussion didn't give notice to anybody watching the articles that this was about to happen, or (it seems) to any interested Wikiprojects. You don't get to do that for a featured list. While the RfC may be persuasive in AfD discussions it doesn't justify nuking all the articles like this. I would also advise against a mass AfD nomination given the variety of articles this involves. Hut 8.5 07:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - with the exception of orphaned template redirects which are unlikely to be used ever, nothing should be deleted under any circumstances unless it meets one of the following criteria:
- It was discussed in an appropriate XFD discussion, with consensus to delete;
- It meats the criteria for PROD, including having been tagged for the required amount of time
- It meets some criterion which was approved as a CSD, in a discussion which either took place at WT:CSD or a notification of the discussion was placed there;
- Situations which must be handled urgently, and can't wait for a general discussion;
- Deletion under rules or instructions set out by the Foundation, where there can be no doubt that they apply to the deletion in question (the most obvious cases here would be Office actions);
- As none of the above apply here, the deletion was wrong. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support The supposed consensus is now seen to be illusory and, per WP:CONLIMITED, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The fact that one of these lists was featured shows that individual consideration is needed. And all the authors of these pages should be notified per our usual AfD process. Beeblebrox is not the right person to be taking any admin actions needed for this because they are involved. Andrew D. (talk) 08:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, two are featured lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support. This sort of discussion needs to go through the usual channels so that people with experience in that kind of discussion find out about it. Doing it a different way was a mistake. There is no deadline, no hurry to get these deleted, so the cleanest way to fix the mistake is to restore all and start again. If B is complaining that undoing his actions is all too much work, he should have thought of that before getting involved in this mess. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per all the above and there's the need to look at the WP:INVOLVED actions of the admin, seeing as they started the RfC in the first place! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per my thought above. There's need to follow the standard procedure. Noteworthy also is, most of these article are well developed over the years including featured ones which were rigorously adjudged to meet all Wikipedia policies, they shouldn't be summarily deleted as a result of obviously poorly-participated RFC which asked rather hazy questions and closed with ambiguous result. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support When I stated above that restore and redirect was a resonable solution I was not yet aware that notices to the talk pages of these articles had not been made. Given that those messages were not sent, AfD is needed before deletion or soft-deletion via redirect. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support, disclosure - I closed the RFC based on the consensus within the discussion, I don't care whether the articles exist or not. However, I do not believe that any RFC should facilitate the circumvention of the established deletion process. fish&karate 09:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - they should be restored. Then discussions held on how to deal with them. A mass AFD on all of them will end in a train wreck so there will need to be multiple discussions. ~ GB fan 11:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support following standard procedure. I also suspect that many of these are going to end up as keep in AfDs. Excelse (talk) 11:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support And next time please inform the corresponding wikiproject in a proper manner. The deletion of such lists would also prompt the deletion of even more articles of different topics.--Jetstreamer Talk 12:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Just the fact that the articles themselves were not tagged with the possibility of deletion makes this utterly improper. oknazevad (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support. The example of Eastern Air listed above by DHeyward shows that the encyclopedia was actually made worse by this action.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Ernie (talk • contribs)
- Oppose - PROD instead. GiantSnowman 14:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: How can you PROD deleted page if it is not restored? –Ammarpad (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose PROD is preferred. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment A concern with the AFD (beyond some of the issues id'd above and in the PROD section below): we would need to make sure each AFD links back to the RFC, and that the closing admin have to weigh that considerably against other !votes (eg, imagine copy and pasting all !votes from the RFC into the AFD); otherwise, I can see most of these AFDs being closed as keep as they will likely have high participation from the various transportation projects. This could be a problem. --Masem (t) 14:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't actually get the section below, as prod is part of the deletion process, but your claim is just beside the point. If you are examining a list, you actually do have to deal with the particulars of that list and not broad claims. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- The closure of the RFC concluded that WP should not (not "must not") have these lists. So a case-by-case evaluation is absolutely called for, no question. But if those processes are run without considering the weight of the RFC, most of the lists are likely to be kept - to be blunt but not as an insult, most of those pages are being kept by editors that are the airline equivalent of trainspotters, and we can already see here some of them not likely that their work is going to be removed. They will likely be the ones to challenge the AFD and/or any PROD with the loudest voices. We do need to heed those, but with the understanding that only the most exception cases should be kept, or where appropriate, content merged to other articles, so the broad RFC result still needs to be upheld. To me, this is why PROD or AFD seems like the wrong first step and instead a discussion on how to go about merging, redirecting or other types of actions that can be taken first before the mass "deletion" step is done. --Masem (t) 15:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I don't actually get the section below, as prod is part of the deletion process, but your claim is just beside the point. If you are examining a list, you actually do have to deal with the particulars of that list and not broad claims. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Question What about lists embedded in airline articles? They were removed as well [17] [18].--Jetstreamer Talk 15:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - per basic Wikipedia protocol. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support 400+ articles are not all created equal. Some are likely worthy of deletion, but some are not. It may take quite a bit of time to sort through them, but we can't just nuke hundreds of articles like this. Lepricavark (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - when there is any doubt about deletion, we should go through AfD. The actual number is neither here nor there because there are tools (here and elsewhere) for handling large numbers. Green Giant (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Review needed, and discussion in PROD section indicates that won't work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per most of what was said above. Also, we should probably limit the amount of articles submitted to AFD at the same time, to not overwhelm the process. Regards SoWhy 16:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support- but only with the understanding that a "no consensus" on any individual AfD discussion defaults to the outcome of the RfC (ie. delete) rather than keep. I also predict that, if they're nominated individually, there will be people saying that's too many AfDs and they should be bundled. And if there are bundled nominations there'll be people demanding they be unbundled and nominated separately. Such votes should be given no weight. Reyk YO! 17:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Qualified support: it seems unlikely that the PROD proposal will gain wide support, so I'm okay with starting an AfD discussion on each list. However, the editors who close these discussions should be experienced in assessing consensus and should take into account the WP:VPP decision to delete the lists. Opposing !votes should address why this list in particular is an exception to that decision. AdA&D ★ 17:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support AfD is the proper venue.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support, making sure that there are links to both the VPP discussion and this one on AN on each AfD. ansh666 18:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Village Pump is not the venue for discussing the deletion of ONE article, no less hundreds. That Beebs started the RFC and starting doing the work doesn't bother me as we aren't a bureaucracy, but I would have hoped he knew that VP isn't a proper deletion venue to even hold the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment There is some debate on how to proceed after the articles are restored, but there appears to be a strong consensus to restore the articles. The longer we wait, the more work it will be to fix the wikilinks to these articles. Therefore, we should restore the articles and continue the discussion below about the best long term solution. Bill H Pike (talk, contribs) 18:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support I saw a coiple go across my watchlist. Generally airline destination lists are very useful. I've used these pages myself. Passanger airlines don't just randomly start and stop flying places. There is a big procedure, in some smaller centers it is an economicly big deal. Where an airline goes is practically the most useful info that exists about the airline. Why are we mass deleting useful info again? Legacypac (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Restore and mass-PROD the pages
Close as proposer. Clearly this is not going to gain support, no need to clutter the discussion. AdA&D ★ 20:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Why Mass PROD is against policy-and why the proposal is not enforceable
|
Response from Beeblebrox
- Ok, clearly the community does not support the idea that a consensus at VPP is sufficient to just delete the articles. I don’t agree, but there it is, so that’s what we’ll go with.
- I’m glad the PROD idea was floated here and voted on as it makes my actions look less crazy, that’s a completely whack idea with several obvious flaws.
- As it happens I am busy today, so I probably won’t make much progress on these restorations in the next 24 hours. It looks like I’ll have more time tomorrow. I’m willing to do the cleanup, just as I was willing to slog through all these deletions to begin with, but real life sometimes must take priority. If any other admin thinks a day is too long to leave this they are welcome to start without me. As a gesture of good faith I’ll do a quick run before I go, but it probably won’t be much as I have to get to work soon.
- As far as I’m concerned that concludes this matter, (except for doing the actual work of course) but if those lusting for blood would like to turn this into an arb case, I would point out that when serious objections surfaced I ceased the deletions and sought community input. That I apparently misjudged how the community viewed this is now evident and I have admitted as much and indicate my willingness to work on undoing all of it. If you think that shows a lack of suitable judgement to continue being admin, good luck with that case, I’ll see you there. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Did a handful just now, but I’m getting some kind of dbase lag error about every third page, so it’s taking a lot of time that I don’t have to spare at the moment. Maybe some admin with AWB can do some magic? If not I’ll be at it again when I have time and hopefully traffic is a bit slower. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've got most of them with TWINKLE's batch restoration tool, which is usually great for things like this. I did get a huge number of error responses from the server and I've now run into issues with database lag. I'll keep trying on the last few. Hut 8.5 20:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's done now. All the articles seem to be restored, I finished off all the AnomieBOT III deletions, and I believe I've caught all the ones that were manually deleted by other editors. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- No hard feelings from my part Beeblebrox, we all make mistakes. Putting your tools on scrutiny was not an idea that crossed my mind, I was actually concerned on how to recover all these articles.--Jetstreamer Talk 22:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Did a handful just now, but I’m getting some kind of dbase lag error about every third page, so it’s taking a lot of time that I don’t have to spare at the moment. Maybe some admin with AWB can do some magic? If not I’ll be at it again when I have time and hopefully traffic is a bit slower. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you all for the help, I can’t believe I didn’t even think to use Twinkle, I guess I’ve never done that specific operation with it before despite using it for nearly ten years. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion for closure
- Primefac, the original poster of this thread appended his statement above with caveat to keep
"focus on the articles and what we should do about them."
. As such, I think:
- There's clear consensus for restoring these articles and it seems all were restored. Thanks to co-ordinated efforts of Xexbeth, GB fan, Hut 8.5, Beeblebrox himself and others I may not know.
- There's no consensus on any possible mass-action on them. I think this is enough and I am suggesting this thread to be closed. –Ammarpad (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Please help keep an eye on Sara Netanyahu
Due to recent news in Israel, there has been a lot of attention to the wife of the Israeli prime minister, Sara Netanyahu. The article on Hebrew Wikipedia has been protected at a level above semi-protection. While we don't pre-emptively protect pages here, even of their foreign-language versions have been protected, we definitely should keep an eye on her article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
User:PAKHIGHWAY
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PAKHIGHWAY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
has asked that their appeal of an AE block be copied here. Not sure how to go about doing that. (Never saw it done before), so I'll these here for now. I'll notice the blocking admin on his talk. Thanks. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Apparently, they have a different understanding of their ban than than the blocking admin and are quite upset about the block. They feel they have not violated their topic ban. Thanks, -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Pro:Atria
I have a dispute with @Stas`: about three articles where he added the Draft:Pro:Atria as a link. I have removed those links, citing the argument "removed program without article, deemed not notable" from List of FTP server software (here), Comparison of FTP client software (here and here) and Comparison of SSH servers (here and here)
Since than Stas' is banging at the door to ask for clarity and consistency. I have replied that it would be easier to just write an article. (The draft used was by that that already two times declined) By now, he has reached my annoyance level but I am aware of the fact that I can have acted overly harsh.
So I request more people to weigh in. The Banner talk 16:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you! Stas` (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- We do not link from Articles to Drafts. Full stop, end of story. Stas`, please wait until the draft is approved before adding links to the related articles. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Primefac, I understand that and I appologised for the initial edits using a draft. The following edits I sent, contained red links. So my question, in fact, was if it is OK to update the relevant pages (where red links are allowed obviously)? As far as I understand, this is allowed in the WP:CSC, and I believe ultimately, that's where the dispute started. Thanks in advance. Stas` (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, yes, if you are going to redlink an article you need to provide a reference and/or indication that the page could be created in the future. However, I have noticed the general consensus on software/technology lists is that only those with articles are included, simply because these programs are a dime-a-dozen and there's rarely an indication that a program is notable until someone writes an article about it. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- The changes I've sent were updates to the alternative that exists already in the list. The same goes with the article draft, the intent was to provide up-to-date information and transparency behind a company providing software (in that list) for governmental agencies among others. Stas` (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, yes, if you are going to redlink an article you need to provide a reference and/or indication that the page could be created in the future. However, I have noticed the general consensus on software/technology lists is that only those with articles are included, simply because these programs are a dime-a-dozen and there's rarely an indication that a program is notable until someone writes an article about it. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Primefac, I understand that and I appologised for the initial edits using a draft. The following edits I sent, contained red links. So my question, in fact, was if it is OK to update the relevant pages (where red links are allowed obviously)? As far as I understand, this is allowed in the WP:CSC, and I believe ultimately, that's where the dispute started. Thanks in advance. Stas` (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- We do not link from Articles to Drafts. Full stop, end of story. Stas`, please wait until the draft is approved before adding links to the related articles. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Can someone just revew the Draft and move it into mainspace if acceptable? It was not resubmitted but a note was posted asking for review. That would solve the back and forth. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- The back and forth was about the inclusion in the list, not necessarily the draft being declined. Thank you for submitting it; we shall see how it fares. Primefac (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Marshallsumter unban request
Marshallsumter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Marshallsumter has posted an appeal to his community ban.
Reasons for unblock are
- the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for, I will not do any of the "intent not aligned with Wikipedia's mission" per User:lifebaka again, and I will make productive contributions instead,
- Wikiversity provides a more than ample environment to write lectures and laboratories using original research and/or synthesis. I have no need nor desire to contribute to Wikipedia in this regard.
- Per User:lifebaka: "you will need to either stop or finish your research before you can be unblocked". I have finished my v:Dominant group original research with respect to such articles I created on Wikipedia. See v:Dominant group/Proof of concept.
- The block is no longer necessary because I understand what I am blocked for: I will not commit any "copyright violations" per local en:Wikipedia policy again, and I will make productive contributions instead.
- Per Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks: "Earn back our trust by proposing improvements to articles or proposing firm steps you will take so the [issues] cannot happen again." Each of the fields that I have contributed to in the past have project pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes, Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology, Wikipedia:WikiProject History, and many others. Perhaps the easiest and best way for firm steps I will take so the issues cannot happen again is to suggest any changes, improvements or new articles first on these project talk pages to get consensus, review and/or guidance.
- I would like to import many of my currently deleted articles to Wikiversity. This can be accomplished in two ways: (1) I can request a short term undelete by a sysop as I do now on commons of the sysop who deleted a file to import the article, or (2) I can request a short term undeletion of an article by email so that I can import it with its edit history to Wikiversity.
Copied without comment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Linking WP:AN/I ban discussion for reference. -- Begoon 16:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Already done, actually...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- duh - sorry - so you did, my bad -- Begoon 16:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support- Six years is well and truly long enough for WP:OFFER to apply, and the unban request shows a good understanding of why they were banned and also how to avoid doing those things in future. I'm OK with giving a 2nd chance here. Reyk YO! 17:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Makes a lot of sense, especially in terms of having found an outlet elsewhere for the editing that was causing a problem. MPS1992 (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support because six years is indeed more than enough time. Marshallsumter has demonstrated a strong commitment to Wikiversity, which shows that this isn’t a disruptive user. Green Giant (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - compelling case made. Seems a good chance future edits will be productive, worth the risk. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support - this is how you do unblock requests, folks. I have a reservation about point #6 though: if the deleted pages contain copyright violations they cannot be restored for the purpose suggested, regardless of how "loose" Wikiversity's copyright policies might be (I suspect they're not as loose as the ban discussion suggested). If the restoring admin would like to email the user a copy sanitized of potential copyvios, that's probably fine. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support -Six years is really long time and with this reasonable unblock request they should be given a second chance. –Ammarpad (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support indeed. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support per arguments above. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
User talk:HankMoodyTZ Standard Offer Unblock Request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is an unblock request at User talk:HankMoodyTZ indicating they have abided by the standard offer. I have no comment one way or the other, just bringing it here for discussion. If a checkuser could see what the socking status is, that may help with people reaching a consensus one way or the other. --Jayron32 17:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-admin comment) There are edits from IP ranges that HankMoody has used in the past to some of their favourite articles as recently as today, so the claim to have abided by the standard offer looks rather disingenuous to me. I should add that they have prior history with sort of thing. They were actively socking during their last UTRS appeal (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HankMoodyTZ/Archive#25 March 2017). Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as there is too much unknown, no path forward given, and Sir Sputnik makes some good points about previous (and likely current) activity. Not worth the risk at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per Dennis and Sputnik. The appeal does not identify the issues which resulted in an indefinite block, so it follows the appeal does not indicate how these issues will be rectified. Activity at time of previous appeal is highly questionable, which leaves me uncomfortable at unblocking. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose entirely on the basis of the unblock consisting of "I think I've waited long enough". Evidence of current socking also is not promising. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Checkuser note: HankMoodyTZ is Confirmed to be persistently and consistently evading their block.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Ponyo. GABgab 22:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Admin invoking SCHOOLOUTCOMES at AfD
Necrothesp (talk · contribs) continues effectively to invoke WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES at AfDs, eg: here, despite participating in the RfC that deprecated using it and being well aware of that outcome. I raised the issue with them many months ago (somewhere, can't find it right now) and they argued that it was still consensus, regardless of what the RfC said. It is becoming irritating; worse, their status as an admin could tend to cause a chilling effect on such discussions and/or mislead the less well-informed. Can we please have some sort of message sent to Necrothesp that they should not in future refer to "prior consensus" (broadly construed) in any AfD relating to a school. If nothing else, it leads to relitigation because of their insistence that the RfC has no merit: merely avoiding the letters SCHOOLOUTCOMES does not alter the intent
For the record, other experienced contributors did pretty much the same thing in the particular instance I have diff'd above, eg: Doncram and Andrew Davidson. They should know better but they do not have the elevated status of admin which, however much we try to pretend otherwise, does carry weight. Also for clarity, and since I have been accused of personal attacks, the aforementioned AfD has also been the subject of discussion today at Drmies' talk page. - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- In the diff mentioned, it was labelled as a "longstanding precedent" which it was. So I don't think it is anything very serious in this case. Particularly as others already voted keep. If an admin does not agree with a consensus, they can still argue against it! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- To be precise, it is a longstanding and superseded precedent, which Necrothesp has never accepted. Eg: here, last year, they were invoking IAR and pedantically claiming that, really, Wikipedia has no rules at all. They're right, on those specious grounds, but just look at what resulted in terms of verbiage. - Sitush (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I also think that an admin is free to challenge consensus in discussion but not to misrepresent it as being wrong in fact, which is what appears to happen. In any event, it isn't necessary: just find the sources. - Sitush (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- (ec) People routinely do as they please all over Wikipedia. At AfD, they don't follow WP:BEFORE and then they talk so much nonsense that we have a page to list all the possibilities: Arguments to avoid. Per WP:CREEP, it's a waste of time adding to the number of prescriptive rules because we have a well-established meta-rule which tells us that it's ok to ignore them all. And we even have another meta-rule telling people not to make prescriptive rules. This idea that a flash-mob at the village pump gets to tell us all what to do isn't going to fly. See the separate furore about airlines for another example. Andrew D. (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yep, well I figured you would like the idea of the wild west when it suits you. It doesn't solve the problem that routinely using it is a poor stance for an admin. We may as well not bother with consensus, RfCs and everything else. A ridiculous notion, surely? - Sitush (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Let me try to phrase that in a better way. IAR only works if, when applied, people think it has been justifiably applied. If they do not then an IAR action would be reverted. So even IAR ultimately depends on consensus. In the case of finagling its use in AfDs, it really has no valid purpose. - Sitush (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Aye, I agree they need to stop doing that. An admin blatantly ignoring an RfC does not look good. Also, some people (not many) were perfectly able to make their points for keeping the article without resorting to drivel like "it's a school so we keep it" and perhaps that AfD will stand as a marker as to why you're actually not helping your own cause by doing it. Black Kite (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I've seen Necrothesp doing this as well. He did it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge International School of Tunis. He started by stating "Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus.", and when I queried this he said "Consensus that generally all secondary schools that are proven to exist are notable. Something that has been established at AfD for many years." All without ever once citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I eventually had to find it myself to figure out what the hell he was talking about, and even then he proceeded to argue with me that "SCHOOLOUTCOMES merely summarises an existing consensus. And the RfC, despite the desperate, tedious and refuted claims of the deletionist brigade, did not change that." All this to me points to deliberate obfuscation and intentionally ignoring the result of the RfC. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 23:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Question: Does it matter that it is an admin or not here? As long as they are not using their tools to enforce this (which in this case, would be closing AFDs with this stance), it is not quite an admin problem, though certainly something to be warned about. --Masem (t) 23:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- If he's effectively saying that he can ignore any RfC he doesn't agree with, then I would say that's not particularly compatible with any advanced permissions. Look at the quote in the comment above yours - that's definitely problematic. Black Kite (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Necrothesp I agree with you that secondary schools being listed best serves Wikipedia, and that the one RFC isn't the best indicator of consensus, however, it is the only one we have. So we don't use SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a justification anymore. Just don't. I don't want to see this become larger than it already is. Until another well attended RFC takes place that changes the current consensus, no matter how flawed we might see the existing consensus, it has to stand. I just stay away from most school AFDs now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I agree that it's problematic for anyone, admin or not, to actively participate in AfDs in a way that knowingly contradicts pretty clearly established consensus there. A few of the participants of that RfC who did not like the outcome have labeled it "controversial" and disagree that the plainly worded closing statement says what it does, or argue that the community got it wrong, etc. See e.g. That said, I'm not sure there's anything actionable here. If Necrothesp were closing these discussions with a supervote based on SCHOOLOUTCOMES, that would be one thing, but I don't know that his/her being an admin is relevant in this case. The only feasible action, I think, would be a topic ban from school-related AfDs if he/she expresses an intent to continue to argue contrary to what's been established, but I don't have a sense that it's actually to that point yet, and that sort of topic ban is pretty uncommon. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I would be strongly against any kind of topic ban or other sanction as there has been no showing of any real disruption. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've advised just staying away because they can be frustrating, but there is NO policy violation in being in the minority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- And just to be clear, I'm not advocating for a topic ban. Just speculating about what the possible outcomes are. If there's evidence Necrothesp routinely makes WP:IDHT !votes at many school-related AfDs, then there's an argument for disruption, but a handful is just, well, not great. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Here's another. I don't frequent school AfDs that much but off the top of my head, I've seen many examples. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- And just to be clear, I'm not advocating for a topic ban. Just speculating about what the possible outcomes are. If there's evidence Necrothesp routinely makes WP:IDHT !votes at many school-related AfDs, then there's an argument for disruption, but a handful is just, well, not great. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I am not seeking a topic ban. As for the admin issue, the problem is that (a) it is unseemly for an admin to obfuscate about consensus, deliberately seeking wording that avoids a direct reference to the RfC outcome; (b) like it or not, admins do have a perceived elevated status, particularly with newbies, even when not acting in an administrative capacity. For an admin to know what consensus says but seemingly deliberately misrepresent it is appalling. And, as I said above, it is causing a lot of relitigation. - Sitush (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Dennis Brown, I'd say that it is at least mildly disruptive to !vote 'Keep' and claim that there is a "longstanding consensus" while intentionally neglecting to mention that said consensus was overturned by RfC. It is basically a boldfaced lie by omission (i.e. "when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception"). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Calling it a lie is fairly uncivil. If someone not only disagrees with an RFC but believes that the true consensus is other than the outcome, that is not a lie. They may be mistaken, or they may actually be correct, as not every RFC is a perfect reflection of consensus. You don't know what is in his head. By policy, we still have to live with the outcome of that RFC (and should), but that doesn't mean someone is forced to believe it truly reflects consensus. Any closing admin worth his salt knows how to parse that vote. Calling it "lying by omission" (below) is also misstating the facts. Unless you have better evidence he is lying, I would suggest finding a better phrase. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Economical with the truth? There are times when this place is barmy! - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown, The shoe fits. I am not sure how much clearer the evidence can be. He intentionally states that a longstanding consensus exists while also intentionally not mentioning the RfC that overturned that same consensus. I even qualified my descriptor with a clear definition above (i.e. "when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception"). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Economical with the truth? There are times when this place is barmy! - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Calling it a lie is fairly uncivil. If someone not only disagrees with an RFC but believes that the true consensus is other than the outcome, that is not a lie. They may be mistaken, or they may actually be correct, as not every RFC is a perfect reflection of consensus. You don't know what is in his head. By policy, we still have to live with the outcome of that RFC (and should), but that doesn't mean someone is forced to believe it truly reflects consensus. Any closing admin worth his salt knows how to parse that vote. Calling it "lying by omission" (below) is also misstating the facts. Unless you have better evidence he is lying, I would suggest finding a better phrase. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Dennis Brown, I'd say that it is at least mildly disruptive to !vote 'Keep' and claim that there is a "longstanding consensus" while intentionally neglecting to mention that said consensus was overturned by RfC. It is basically a boldfaced lie by omission (i.e. "when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception"). — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I would be strongly against any kind of topic ban or other sanction as there has been no showing of any real disruption. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I've advised just staying away because they can be frustrating, but there is NO policy violation in being in the minority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I hate to do this, but this isn't just a few isolated examples. I just checked Necrothesp's AfD stats and there are dozens of examples on the first page alone, all with the same lie by omission and repeated claims that the RfC means nothing. He has also been using the "per longstanding precedent and consensus" as a rationale to dePROD articles as well (and those are just the ones where he used that specific wording the in edit summary). I don't wan't to start a witch hunt here, but repeatedly lying by omission like this is disruptive. He has hijacked multiple AfD's where nobody came by to correct him and they just followed the bandwagon of the admin: for example, see this one. Also in this one his repeated lies by omission
result in AngusWOOF withdrawing his nomination in ignorance.Necrothesp isn't the only one: here is an AfD where a whole cohort of people just decided to collectively ignore the RfC and directly cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES as a keep rationale. Looking through Necrothesp's AfD's reveals many such AfDs where SCHOOLOUTCOMES is still commonly used as a 'keep' !vote. I would guess that some of these people are following Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Schools. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- The only reason I withdrew the nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Álvaro Guião State School was because I found the equivalent article in Portuguese Wikipedia that showed it could be notable. It was nothing to do with Necrothesp's arguments that secondary schools are automatically notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- His comments on the AfD page still stand for themselves. He clearly was arguing for SCHOOLOUTCOMES just for the sake of it despite the absolutely deplorable state of the article. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- The only reason I withdrew the nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Álvaro Guião State School was because I found the equivalent article in Portuguese Wikipedia that showed it could be notable. It was nothing to do with Necrothesp's arguments that secondary schools are automatically notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with most of the comments above. Experienced editors (and this should be understood to include admins) should not be taking it on themselves to infer that an RfC that had very heavy participation is in some way illegitimate or not representative of community consensus. IAR is a legitimate recourse for some situations where there are specific circumstances that suggest a one off exception to a guideline or policy is justified. It is not a license to ignore established community consensus because you don't agree with it. We probably all have a guideline or two that we really don't care for including me. If you disagree with a guideline/policy so much that you just can't in conscience abide by it, then don't get involved with those issues. (FTR I think MOS:GENDERID is 100% bat shit crazy and I absolutely refuse to get involved in anything where I may be required to call someone who is a biological male, a female and vice versa.) I also agree that this is not a situation warranting any kind of TBan. I would rather think of it as a friendly tap on the shoulder from the community followed by a polite "please don't do this anymore." -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I guess I'm not surprised that in 2018 America someone is bragging about their bigotry in public, although I guess you get points for doing it so gratuitously. Please don't do that anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- And I'm guess I AM surprised that an admin can declare unilateral victory regarding a divisive issue in gender politics as justification for calling another editor a bigot. So, please don't do THAT anymore. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- This isn't the first time I've seen this kind of anger and denial from this editor; I remember that the first time I saw it I was surprised to discover this was an administrator. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think overall making bad arguments at AfD is a waste of time but not particularly destructive overall since closers are tasked with weighing arguments, and bad arguments (like WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) bear very little weight. Ref Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daffodils English School, Sanjaynagar. It's clearly not worthy of a desysop, there doesn't seem to be much taste for a topic ban, Necrothesp has surely seen the advice proferred here, whether they follow up or not if up to them; making bad arguments at AfD reflects more poorly on them than it does on AfD. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 02:12, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- I left him a note asking him to stop.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)