Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →Formal proposal: typo |
→Source discussion: nonsense |
||
| Line 617: | Line 617: | ||
::::::: I've done nothing of the kind, but once again, you keep making false accusations. You and your project have attempted to falsely portray cannabis as a dangerous drug that threatens mental and physiological health by manipulating and cherry picking poor and biased sources. That you folks are doing this ''across the encyclopedia'' in multiple topic areas appears to be the underlying complaint, but please, continue to try and deflect your attempts at skewing articles by blaming editors for "troubling behaviors". [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC) |
::::::: I've done nothing of the kind, but once again, you keep making false accusations. You and your project have attempted to falsely portray cannabis as a dangerous drug that threatens mental and physiological health by manipulating and cherry picking poor and biased sources. That you folks are doing this ''across the encyclopedia'' in multiple topic areas appears to be the underlying complaint, but please, continue to try and deflect your attempts at skewing articles by blaming editors for "troubling behaviors". [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::::: And again, a review of those talk pages will reveal who is "cherry picking" or using "biased sources". Um, since I started this section with ''my post'', please do not remove my subhead. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 03:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::: And again, a review of those talk pages will reveal who is "cherry picking" or using "biased sources". Um, since I started this section with ''my post'', please do not remove my subhead. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 03:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::Actually, a review of the ''sources'' indicates that you and the project are deliberately misusing them to push a POV. Like the claim that medical cannabis causes physiological disorders. I requested that source and reviewed it, and found nothing whatsoever supporting that claim. This is par for the course. You guys are pushing an agenda and misusing sources. And you are tag team reverting to promote your versions. [[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] ([[User talk:Viriditas|talk]]) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)]] == |
== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination)]] == |
||
Revision as of 03:29, 9 January 2014
| 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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
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
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 123 days ago on 3 June 2024) Initial close has been overturned at review. A new close is required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Surely someone wants to be taken to review and shouted at, even if just for the experience. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- I doubt it will be possible to assemble a panel for something as inconsequential as this. Frankly, I don't know what should be done here. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
- Panel close is probably a good idea if we can get a panel together. Loki (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anyone want a closer's barnstar? (okay but seriously maybe we should just panel close this one, if only to prevent any further disputes.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 55 days ago on 9 August 2024)
Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 48 days ago on 17 August 2024) Requesting immediate procedural close for Talk:Philippe Pétain#Rfc for Lede Image of Philippe Pétain, because it is blocked on a Wikipedia policy with legal implications that no one at the Rfc is qualified to comment on, namely U.S. copyright law about an image. At a minimum, it will require action at Commons about whether to delete an image, and likely they will have to consult Wikimedia legal for an interpretation in order to resolve the issue. Under current circumstances, it is a waste of editor time to leave the Rfc open, and is impossible to reliably evaluate by a closer, and therefore should be procedurally closed without assessment, the sooner the better. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not appropriate to make an immediate procedural close in those circumstances. Wikipedians routinely make decisions about copyright, even those Wikipedians who aren't US attorneys. This is not a high-drama situation. However I'm starting to wonder if the RFC nominator might be on a crusade about our lede images for prominent WW2 figures, and if so, whether they might benefit from a sysop's advice and guidance about overusing our RFC process.—S Marshall T/C 09:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727 do you still plan on closing this? Nemov (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727 FWIW the image was kept at Commons and here's a bit of a follow up on the copyright stuff discussed afterward.[1] Nemov (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll do this, although I'm going to do the other close I committed to first. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 22 days ago on 11 September 2024)
This will require a close by an editor experienced on WP:BLP polices. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 5 | 33 | 0 | 38 |
| TfD | 0 | 1 | 10 | 0 | 11 |
| MfD | 0 | 1 | 8 | 0 | 9 |
| FfD | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
(Initiated 55 days ago on 10 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 41 days ago on 24 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 35 days ago on 30 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 34 days ago on 30 August 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 24 days ago on 9 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 11 days ago on 22 September 2024) There are a bunch of these on this day's log; I'll only list the one but help closing 'em all would be appreciated :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 9 days ago on 25 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 7 days ago on 26 September 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 129 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)
Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Just checking, would you like someone else to help with this? Soni (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly: also checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to hear that; a week-long hospitalization is not fun. But, I'm glad that you're feeling better. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ping @Frostly again (I saw you've been editing Commons). Hope your still better, and if you don't feel like doing this one anymore, just let people know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Voorts and Soni, thanks for the pings! I've unfortunately been in the hospital for the past week but am now feeling better. I apologize for the long delay in putting out the close and appreciate your messages! Best, — Frostly (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Just a note here that Frostly has not edited in over a month. Might be best for someone else to close. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can't touch that cos I !voted, but although that was a productive and thought-provoking discussion, it's not a discussion that has an actionable outcome. I personally feel it can lie in the archives unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 117 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
- If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 88 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 57 days ago on 8 August 2024) - This has been open and the discussion is at a standstill. While the proposer requested to keep it open, I don't think that it's proper. Another can be opened at another time, but at this point, if someone wouldn't mind closing it, I think that would be helpful to move on. Andre🚐 01:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 53 days ago on 12 August 2024) No comments on two weeks; consensus on the merge is unclear, particularly for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware. 107.122.189.12 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 52 days ago on 13 August 2024) It's been more than a month. The closer must be shrewd and articulate, as the topic is highly contentious. They should also discard comments based on personal opinion rather than policy, and, of course, avoid having their own opinion influence their assessment of consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 48 days ago on 16 August 2024) Discussion has slowed. No comments in a few days. TarnishedPathtalk 02:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 39 days ago on 26 August 2024) I'd like a closure of this discussion, which was preceded by this discussion:Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- There's not a lot of participation here. It might benefit from going to an RfC. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 18:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- The Cobra Crack discussion had 8 people. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 28 days ago on 6 September 2024) Discussion has stopped. Not a snow close so needs the kind support of an independent closer please. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 6 September 2024) Contested proposed merge. Neutral closer required per WP:MERGECLOSE. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 19 days ago on 15 September 2024) – Closed by involved editor under unclear consensus, reopened by a likely sockpuppet account. Discussion has died down and I want an uninvolved closer to get this over and done with. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 18 days ago on 15 September 2024)
Clear consensus to move, just need an experienced editor to close the discussion and perform the move. Some1 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Skimming through the discussion, which has several opposes, this is not a "clear consensus to move". voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 14 days ago on 19 September 2024) - Discussion has kind of stabilized, with 68 people giving over 256 comments. Awesome Aasim 21:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
WP:PUF backlog
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just a notice that there is an immense 3 month backlog over at WP:PUF. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 07:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Now only two and a half months.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has a long history of reverts and edit warring with three full protections in the last three months. The last 100 revisions are mostly users edit warring over content (as opposed to obvious vandalism). Given the amount of disruption caused by edit warring on the page I propose that the article be placed on a one revert restriction which applies to both unregistered and registered users with the standard exceptions for at least 6 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Most of the disruption to this article in recent months has been by one unregistered editor who obviously has several IPs available to him. Initially his edits added new content to the lead, contrary to WP:LEAD, which quite clearly states "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article".[2] Those edits also added a non-NPOV slant to the lead, instead of simply summarising the significant points in the article in a neutral format. After that he started adding non-NPOV content to the article, which was removed by another editor.[3] At the same time he started adding the article to categories while it was already in a subcat of these.[4] Ultimately, community opinion was against him. At two TfDs two contentious categories were deleted and opinion was that the article not be included in the categories that the IP was adding.[5][6] Most recently the disruption by the same editor was as a result of him again ignoring WP:LEAD, replacing content that summarised what was already in the article, with excessively detailed information that was not discussed elsewhere in the article.[7] WP:LEAD quite clearly says this shouldn't be done but the IP won't acknowledge this. In fact, he won't acknowledge or discuss any policy or guideline that he is referred to. His personal motto seems to be "I don't hear that". Instead of following WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO he has his own guideline: BRAREFDIS - BOLD, revert, announce on the talk page why he's going to restore the content, restore the contentious content, edit-war until he's warned, force the article to be protected, finally start discussing, ignore any mention of policies or guidelines so he doesn't have to justify his edits, disappear and start again in a few weeks. I don't see that 1RR is going to be effective in combating this type of disruption. Because of the willingness of this editor to edit-war with multiple editors, it's just going to result in contentious edits being protected from removal. Most of the contentious edits to this article don't warrant protection at all and we shouldn't be protecting disruptive editors like this when they are clearly editing on the wrong side of the Wikipedia community opinion. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at the article history, I get a clear sense of "one versus many". When the "one" is using lots of IP addresses, the best approach is semiprotection. Only if the "many" are enforcing something that's at variance with our policies do we need to have outside intervention, and even if that's the case (I've not checked the content in question with enough care to offer an opinion about that here), the editwarring and its consequent instability are definitely not helpful; it would be better off semiprotected while administrative intervention is being sought. And if it's not at variance with project policies, the "one" obviously is going against some consensus and needs to stop or be stopped. In my mind, we'd do better to semiprotect. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, that's exactly what I asked for,[8] not once, but back in October as well.[9] --AussieLegend (✉) 04:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at the article history, I get a clear sense of "one versus many". When the "one" is using lots of IP addresses, the best approach is semiprotection. Only if the "many" are enforcing something that's at variance with our policies do we need to have outside intervention, and even if that's the case (I've not checked the content in question with enough care to offer an opinion about that here), the editwarring and its consequent instability are definitely not helpful; it would be better off semiprotected while administrative intervention is being sought. And if it's not at variance with project policies, the "one" obviously is going against some consensus and needs to stop or be stopped. In my mind, we'd do better to semiprotect. Nyttend (talk) 04:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Indef blocked User:Trongphu still socking
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It's bad enough that indef blocked User:Trongphu used IP socks in order to ask for a nonsensical unblock, which was rightfully closed (see this thread just above), but now he's posted to my talk page, and that of Nil Einne, whining about the (predictable) result. Would an admin please block the IPs this indef-blocked editor is using:
- 67.4.216.151
- 75.168.162.171 (already blocked by Sandstein)
- 97.116.161.109
"Blocked" means blocked, something this editor seems not to to understand. That they claim to be a sysop on vi.wiki gives me great concern, but there's nothing we can do about that. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at Trongphu's SUL info, it appears he's only a rollbacker and autopatrolled on vi.wiki, so his claim that he's a sysop appears to be a lie. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, what he claimed was that he is a sysop on vi wiktionary, and that is true. JohnCD (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, I miseaad that, thanks for the correction. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- To be fair, what he claimed was that he is a sysop on vi wiktionary, and that is true. JohnCD (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- I deny that the outcome of Trongphu's block request was predictable. Asking for an unblock after 2 years was perfectly OK. Keeping the user blocked on the English Wikipedia serves no apparent purpose other than perhaps satisfying certain ill-tempered editors' need to humiliate others. I left some further comments at User talk:Trongphu before I noticed this new thread.
- The following edit comment by Beyond My Comment was way out of order and is what first made me interested in this case: "You're a total, loser, pure and simple, and you've sullied my clean and empty talk page. I pity vi.wiki if you are one of those in charge. I think I'll have to reconsider Eric Corbett's position about shutting down the lesser Wikipedias." [10] This edit comment turned out to be BMK's pathetic response to Trongphu's pathetic response to BMK's mobbing action in the original thread. Trongphu should not have reacted in this way, but that's no reason to keep them blocked after two years when they don't even want to edit here. Trongphu has argued that editors in other projects are drawing incorrect conclusions from the fact that Trongphu can't get unblocked here, and that's perfectly plausible.
By the way, Beyond My Ken: Your old account doesn't seem to exist anymore, so I can't check your old block log. I read somewhere that you had several blocks for incivility. I wonder if one of them was indefinite. If so, then for obvious reasons (given my obsession with hypocrisy) I would be very curious whether you provided the kind of guarantee that you would reform your behaviour that your are now requiring of Trongphu. Hans Adler 13:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)- @Hans Adler: it's here and here. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. So it was only one incivility block, for only 3 hours, and by Sarek of all people. Striking my comment accordingly. Hans Adler 18:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry that my block log disappointed you, Hans Adler, but then, you're often wrong about many things, so I'm sure you're used to it by now. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- So I take it I was wrong when I mentioned "certain ill-tempered editors' need to humiliate others"? Any alternative explanations available for what happened? Hans Adler 14:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Gee, Hans, I suppose it could be exactly what it appears to be, an editor amazed and appalled at a weird, unnecessary and nonsensical unblock request. No, I guess not, because that would mean that someone you disagreed with wasn't an awful human being, and we know that can't be the case. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see. So your excuse is a total lack of empathy or intercultural competence. In retrospect that's even plausible. Sorry to hear about that problem. Hans Adler 15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, Hans, sure, you guessed correctly, that's it. Happy? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- (Too bad I can't feel your joy at being right.) BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am not feeling any joy about being right on this, though of course you can't know this. This suggests to me that you are living in a very strange, sombre world totally alien to me. I am genuinely sorry for you, though of course you will not believe me and will think I am being sarcastic. Hans Adler 16:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah... <yawn> ... you know ... <stretch> ... umm ... <take sip of iced tea> ... whatever. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am not feeling any joy about being right on this, though of course you can't know this. This suggests to me that you are living in a very strange, sombre world totally alien to me. I am genuinely sorry for you, though of course you will not believe me and will think I am being sarcastic. Hans Adler 16:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- (Too bad I can't feel your joy at being right.) BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, Hans, sure, you guessed correctly, that's it. Happy? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see. So your excuse is a total lack of empathy or intercultural competence. In retrospect that's even plausible. Sorry to hear about that problem. Hans Adler 15:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Gee, Hans, I suppose it could be exactly what it appears to be, an editor amazed and appalled at a weird, unnecessary and nonsensical unblock request. No, I guess not, because that would mean that someone you disagreed with wasn't an awful human being, and we know that can't be the case. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- So I take it I was wrong when I mentioned "certain ill-tempered editors' need to humiliate others"? Any alternative explanations available for what happened? Hans Adler 14:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry that my block log disappointed you, Hans Adler, but then, you're often wrong about many things, so I'm sure you're used to it by now. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks. So it was only one incivility block, for only 3 hours, and by Sarek of all people. Striking my comment accordingly. Hans Adler 18:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Hans Adler: it's here and here. Epicgenius (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why can't we just close this thread and let the unblock ticket request system handle this case? The response to a personal attack should not be another personal attack, especially about other wikis, because that clearly doesn't lead to any good constructive discussions. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 23:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I have blanked the sock template on the userpage, which in the context of a former editor trying to disengage, is seriously counterproductive. I would have done the same on the talkpage, but did not want to disturb the message there. Has any administrator actually evaluated the original unblock request, i.e. whether the original infraction warrants a block of more than two years, and whether a less restrictive alternative is available? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I've changed their block to reinstate talk page access. At least they will have the ability to dialog and possibly post another {{unblock}} message. Two years is more than enough, and they've not been socking over the last two years in any meaningful way (IP edits today notwithstanding). At least give them right to reply from their talk page - Alison ❤ 07:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Ancient Egyptian race controversy, DNA history of Egypt, Black Egyptian Hypothesis, Population history of Egypt-5 to 6 years of editor proliferation of articles, WP:Ownership and POV pushing
How many venues is this going to be reported in? This is essentially a content issue: just because you disagree with the position of the other editors involved doesn't turn it into a behavioral issue that admins would deal with. In any case, if it was a behavioral issue, these noticeboards are not well disposed to deal with the long-term behavior of multiple editors. If the OP really feels this is a behavioral problem, then an ArbCom case would seem to be the way to go - but he or she should be prepared to be told that it's a content issue. Collapsing. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
All DRNs have been withdrawn or deleted, ANI was deleted due to DRNs. This is a major conduct and not a content issue and I would like to have my voice heard and the voice of other editors who have been intimidated, drowned out and outmaneuvered by this small cadre of editors and their friends over the past 5-6 years. Possible options are user bans, topic bans and other suggestions brought up by countless of editors in AN, ANI and DRNs of these same exact editors over 5-6 years as the evidence below shows. This is the evidence so far but I am compiling more. I just want to be heard by the administrators. If I become one of the many other editors who are driven out of Wikipedia as the evidence below shows because of this so be it. Let this stand as a record. Over the past 5-6 years a small cadre of editors have become "brothers of faith" to proliferate multiple articles about nearly identical topics, assert WP:Ownership over these pages and POV push and drive away editors who do not affirm their point of view. This has gone largely unchecked, although the complaints by less experienced editors facing these roadblocks to editors are legion. Their creation of these many articles on the same topic has allowed them to exhaust the time and patience of any editor attempting to include any viewpoint in these articles that they do not agree with. In contrast, miscited or misrepresented content that does support their POV remains unchecked and unaddressed and remains stable in the articles for years, one example of this is: Talk:DNA history of Egypt#How could everyone miss this for so long? which was left intact by this small cadre of editors while constructive edits were thwarted. The talk page of one of these editors, wdford, in fact lays out the tactics used by this small cadre of editors quite explicitly and quite well by these "brothers of the faith." Who: Editors involved, some in the small cadre of "brothers of faith,"and others who have attempted to oppose it-Dougweller, Aua, wdford,, yalens, dbachmann, eyetruth, ( some who've attempted to oppose:drlewisphd, Dailey78) What: A small cadre of editors have pushed their POV over the past 5-6 years thwarting any attempts to include material that dimishes their point of view, helped by their proliferation of multiple articles on almost exactly the same topics to exhaust the time and patience of editors, especially inexperienced ones, forced to discuss on four separate talk pages any inclusions of information in these four articles that offends their POV When:Over the past 5-6 years, from 2008 Where: Ancient Egyptian race controversy/Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, Black Egyptian Hypothesis/Talk:Black Egyptian Hypothesis, DNA history of Egypt/Talk:DNA history of Egypt, Population history of Egypt/Talk:Population history of Egypt, and probably many more related articles regarding race of ancient Egyptians, but these are the ones I have been active on and am actually aware of Why: Pushing their POV, confusing and confounding any editors attempting to make changes that offend their point of view, creating ownership of the topic, supporting their "brothers of the faith." How:As this is done systematically over 5-6 years, many editors who lack the time and patience to deal with multiple talk pages over many years and many many editors are confounded in their attempts to include information that offends their POV. Intimidation tactics for any editors who attempt, like that experienced by me, are legion and do not violate the letter although they violate the spirit of Wikipedia as a collaborative forum.
Evidence from Article Revision Histories and Article Talk Pages
Evidence from Dispute Notice Board/Administrator Notice Boards
Evidence from Editor User Talk Pages
Regards, Andajara120000 (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC) |
1965 – Through the Looking Glass talk page deletion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I require the talk page for the deleted 1965 – Through the Looking Glass (Request for undeletion initiated) to be undeleted. Unfortunately, the admin (@Explicit:) who deleted the page has been inactive since 17 Feb 2013, so although I have left a request on their talk page I doubt it will be followed up on - nothing on that talk page in the last year has. The pages were deleted for non-notability reasons. I have addressed those, and require another admin to undelete them please. Sa cooke (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
album and book cover pictures with wrong licence
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please see [[11]] uploads, there are some cover pictures with wrong licence.--Musamies (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Dealt with, and explained to user what the problem is. It looks like the book covers are of their own books, so they believe they can upload them as self-made. Understandable for a new editor. Black Kite (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Laura Hale topic ban
I would like to propose a topic ban for User:LauraHale from using any Spanish-language sources, since these are her most frequently used sources, but she doesn't understand them and frequently introduces completely incorrect "facts" into articles. This is always a problem, but certainly from someone with a semi-official function wrt Spanish articles.
From her user page: "I have been a Wikimedian in Residence for the Spanish Paralympic Committee since late June 2013."
She recently came back to my attention in the discussion Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 99#Laura Hale revisited from early December 2013, where she had an article lined up for the main page claiming that a Spanish Paralympian had competed at the 1996 Paralympics, which was completely false. Her defense there was:
"I admit that I made a mistake because of a bad Google translation. I have tried to be as diligent as possible to insure I make very few mistakes of this kind. Problems of potentially misunderstanding a source is why we have a review process though, to try to correct any unintentional insertions of non-factual information. It's also why DYK requires articles to be fully sourced."
Yesterday, she moved Rafael Botello Jimenez to the main namespace, but again, this article contains blatant misinformation which seems to be due to poorly (machine-)translated Spanish sources. In this case, the article claims that "In 2010, he competed in the New York City Marathon, finishing in a time of 1:47.39, making him the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to finish the race.[3]" This is rather awkwardly phrased, but stringly gives the impression that he was the first Spanish wheelchaor competitor ever to finish the NY marathon, which is clearly wrong, considering that e.g. in 2007 another Spanish competitor finished ahead of him[12]. The article also claims that "He was the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to go sub 1:15 on in the marathon and sub 10:15 in the 5,000 meters.[1]", but the source makes it clear that he went sub 1 hour 25 (not 15) minutes on the marathon, and it would be nice if different notation was used for hour:minutes and minutes:seconds, not as it is done here.
Another example, also from yesterday: Aitor Oroza Flores: the article claims that he "works as a mechanic, cook and lecturer.[2]", which seems rather intriguing. In reality, his hobbies are "Aficiones: Lectura, mecánica y cocina.", so he doesn't work as a lecturer but likes reading...
We shouldn't let an editor who has so much trouble understanding even the most basic Spanish texts work on BLPs of Spanish people, and even less so as a "Wikimedian in Residence" for such topics. Considering that the problems continue after even the rather blatant incident from last month, and seem to be widespread and serious (the Aitor Oroza Flores example above is a good illustration of this), protecting her, ourselves, and the people involved from further problems and a more massive cleanup operation than we probably already need to undertake, needs to be our priority. A topic ban seems to be the most efficient way to achieve this. Fram (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
You'd need more evidence of consistent multiple errors in her articles than that Fram.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, Dr Blofeld, it seems reasonable to me that once we know someone doesn't adequately speak the language of the sources they're using, and therefore has been introducing errors into articles based on poor translation, we should ask them to stop trying to use sources in that language. Once or twice is enough for that.
However, what's not entirely clear to me from Fram's summary is whether someone has tried to have a conversation with Laura about this. I don't see one on her talk page, at least. Fram, have you or anyone else approached Laura and said, "Hey, it looks like your Spanish isn't really good enough to be doing this sort of sourcing; could you please avoid using Spanish-language sources"? Has she refused to do so? Or have we jumped right from "I recognize a problem in someone else" to "proposing topic ban" without attempting "asking them to stop"? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I believe such conversation is contained in the first reference provided by Fram. (Actually, I see a consensus for DYK topic ban there, does someone know why the topic ban was not implemented?)--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- The DYK talk thread appears to be about topic-banning Laura from DYK. It mentions the Spanish issues, but only in the context of "...and here's why she shouldn't be allowed to submit DYKs," and no one in that thread is really addressing whether Laura should stop using Spanish sources. I guess my point is that no one has presented Laura with "Your Spanish skills aren't up to the job, we need you to stop using Spanish sources for now, in any article," and it seems weird to escalate to a topic ban without seeing if she'll just, you know, stop. That said, however, I do think Laura needs to stop attempting to use Spanish sources, based on what I'm seeing. I'm just wondering whether a topic ban is necessary to have that happen (and maybe it is, but I'd like to see this involve a conversation with Laura about this particular issue, so we can determine that). Hopefully now that this thread is here, she'll be willing to weigh in and engage with the community's concerns. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)I have not contacted her on her talk page, no. I would think that someone who has her position, and has a problem like the one from the DYK discussion from last month, would recognise that she needs to take a lot more care with the sources she uses. Considering that with her position as Wikimedian in residence and her topics, she basically can't agree to not using Spanish sources, but seeing that on the other hand she doesn't seem capable to do so with sufficient accuracy at all, I thought that having an outside, binding discussion would be more logical and fruitful. Anyway, other articles and DYKs seem to have sufficient problems as well, looking at rejected recent DYKS like Template:Did you know nominations/María Carmen Rubio and Template:Did you know nominations/David Mouriz Dopico. Fram (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I echo what User:Fluffernutter said. If someone (doesn't matter if it's Jimbo or an IP editor) heavily relies on Google Translate or other online translation service to translate an entire sentence, they probably don't have a clue in that language to judge whether the translated sentence is factually correct. Now back to Laura. Fram provided evidence of three articles that contained wrong information as a result of improper translation. Others above have brought the previous DYK topic ban attempt into the discussion. From a chronological perspective, we see that only the first article made its way to DYK and the two subsequent articles did not. So I don't think we should tie this with the DYK topic ban. However, since this topic ban proposal is about "using any Spanish-language sources", I see the merit in it. But if it's enacted, how can we enforce it? Laura could have used other languages (e.g. Italian, Portuguese) to circumvent this topic ban and we will be back here very shortly. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- My understanding is that she only speaks English, so topic-ban for using any machine translations seems in principle sensible to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I echo what User:Fluffernutter said. If someone (doesn't matter if it's Jimbo or an IP editor) heavily relies on Google Translate or other online translation service to translate an entire sentence, they probably don't have a clue in that language to judge whether the translated sentence is factually correct. Now back to Laura. Fram provided evidence of three articles that contained wrong information as a result of improper translation. Others above have brought the previous DYK topic ban attempt into the discussion. From a chronological perspective, we see that only the first article made its way to DYK and the two subsequent articles did not. So I don't think we should tie this with the DYK topic ban. However, since this topic ban proposal is about "using any Spanish-language sources", I see the merit in it. But if it's enacted, how can we enforce it? Laura could have used other languages (e.g. Italian, Portuguese) to circumvent this topic ban and we will be back here very shortly. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I believe such conversation is contained in the first reference provided by Fram. (Actually, I see a consensus for DYK topic ban there, does someone know why the topic ban was not implemented?)--Ymblanter (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Ban? When the obvious solution is to run it by a competent translator? We are still tying to help each other out, I think. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- " I would think that someone who has her position..." Wait, what has her employment got to do with this? If she wasn't a Wikimedian in Residence, would you still be making this proposal? If so, why is it relevant? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is not someone making a one-off or limited series of articles based on Spanish sources, this is someone who does this in a semi-offocial position on a serial basis and can be expected to continue doing these articles. Her position is important background, also indicating that she is not some newbie. Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Apart from the original mistake (which has been discussed before), you've given three examples here:
- The first is mildly badly written English ("In 2010 ... making him the first Spanish wheelchair competitor to finish the race" implies the 2010 race, not every year's race.) It's not a translation problem; the problem is merely the slightly ambiguous English.
- The second looks just as likely, in fact far more likely, to be a typo rather than anything to do with Google translate. (Does Google translate turn "25" into "15"?) The 1 and 2 keys are next to each other on most keyboards.
- The third is a bit more uncertain, but could just as well be a careless hurried manual translation (see false friend) rather than a Google translate problem.
Your evidence doesn't prove your thesis, in fact it doesn't even come close. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- The topic ban is not based on her using machine translations, human translations or baboon translations, the tpic ban is because she consistently uses bad translations. I really don't care where she get these, the "Google translation" comes from her own admission, not from some research on what produced these results. Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- I really do think that this should have been discussed with Laura before it was brought here, As a Wikimedian in Residence in Australia she did some excellent work. She is now living in Spain, and presumably learning Spanish. A quiet talk with her would probably result in getting a Spanish friend to check her translations. All this drama could have been avoided. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- She had a completely incorrect DYK due to a bad translation, which was discussed with her at WT:DYK, but which didn't change anything. Yes, all this drama could have been avoided if she had made some effort instead of continuing with more of the same... Fram (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is a very ill judged discussion. Lets just imagine that these mistakes had come from poorly misunderstood sources in English. They might be misunderstood facts, poorly written English or because it is unusual English. Would we ban that editor from using English sources? We are constantly having to make value judgements about sources and facts and we make mistakes. I'm pleased to see that someone spotted an error. They should fix it and move on. If there is a problem then it doesnt require us to vote on someones first guess at a solution to the problem. Other solutions exist ... and actually the problem is not going to cause the sky to fall. Victuallers (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, what on earth is this doing on an Administrator noticeboard. Fram should have discussed this on Laura's user page. That would be much closer to our standard approaches with problematic user behaviour. As for Laura's English, no it's not perfect (nor is mine), but that's the easiest thing in the world for any of us to fix. And why a topic ban? She obviously has good knowledge of the area involved, and access to good sources. The aim here should be to simply fix the translation problem. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- And how would you suggest we do this? How do you fix a translation problem? Victuallers as well says "other solutions exist", but offers none. This is not about making "value judgments", when you claim that someone works as a lecturer because you can't understand Spanish and the source says that someone has reading as a hobby, then you just aren't fit to use Spanish sources (and no, the Spanish source was not written poorly or in unusual Spanish; a sports journalist writing solely about Spanish artists should know the word "aficionado", and here the word was "Aficiones", which is very basic Spanish anyay) and when someone has had serious problems in that regard recently, but continues to create dozens of articles based on nothing but Spanish and Catalan sources, then something needs to be done. Fram (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Discuss it with her? Offer to help? HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. Serious lack of WP:AGF from the originators of this AN thread, from what I'm seeing. Orderinchaos 08:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- It just seems hard to believe we are bereft of knowledge of Spanish, and no one will help vet before publication here when she has a problem on BLP's. [13] [14] For example, I have asked knowledgeable wikipedians to vet non-English sources, and they seem to be quite helpful people. Doesn't your proposal seem more than a little cruel for someone working in Spain?-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cruel? It's her choice to continue producing clearly deficient articles on BLPs by using completely incorrect translations (no matter how they are produced), even after the result of such actions have been pointed out. In the above linked DYK discussion from one month ago, she stated "My Spanish is good enough that I can pick up most facts, and know where there are issues. [...] I also hangout in #wikimedia-es and #wikinews-es a lot asking for clarification on Spanish I do not understand. I also have access to native speakers that assist me when I ask." If all these assurances she gave are not sufficient, then what more can we ask? She is producing English language articles for the Spanish Paralympic Committee, who probably trust her work blindly (considering that she is the Wikimedian in Residence). Isn't it cruel towards the Committee to let her continue to produce such basic errors? We know there are problems, her assurances from a month ago seem to be worthless, so the next step is to force a change. Fram (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- But, no the first step and restriction is not a total ban. 'Hi Laura. I notice you are still having problems with BLP Spanish translations: ... . Especially because these are BLPs, we should have these articles and sources vetted by people more knowledgeable in Spanish before publication (See [15][16]) What do you say?' The Committee probably believes we are helpful to each other and interested in their work that is notable, so it would be good to foster that belief, since we regularly say we produce this work in a "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Considering the years of problems with this editor, as evidenced by the comments from others here as well, this is hardly "the first step". And I have no interest in playing games to hide the incompetence (or whatever reason applies) of some editor; yes, we are interested in their work and the notable athletes, and for that reason we feel that it is very problematic that the dedicated editor for these is making such a mess of it, and continues doing so after many earlier problems. That is the message the Committee should get, not some "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". Fram (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Games? Cooperation is not a game, here. What years of problems with Spanish translations? You appear to admit that some of the work is serviceable and you say below that there is virtually no one else who is interested in writing for Wikipedia about the Committee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cooperation is a two-way street though. And it looks as if you prefer incorrect articles to no articles? I'ld rather not have an article in an encyclopedia, than an article with such blatantly incorrect information. And if I were the Committee, I certainly wouldn't want to have a Wikimedian in Residence who contributes such incorrect and poor articles. Fram (talk)
- I am seriously concerned with the fact that we seem to have some real problems with Laura's editing, she is aware of the discussion, but has chosen not to respond. I have left another message at her talk page, inviting he either here or to any other place at her choice.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- What? You have not read what I wrote (I said approach with a vetting plan). If cooperation is a street, this board is telling the OP that they have not driven on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you are talking about. What cooperation? What board? Anyway she has responded, hopefully we can resolve the issue at least temporarily.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I assumed you wrote, "cooperation is a two way street", (is that someone else's unsigned comment?) so that is the cooperation I am talking about. As for board, I meant this comment notice board, AN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I did not write that, but anyway, thanks, I now understand what you mean. My communication with Laura is in the meanwhile going nowhere. If someone feels they can help I would welcome any help there.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- My apologies, my signature was missing there, I have now added it. Sorry for the confusion. Fram (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I did not write that, but anyway, thanks, I now understand what you mean. My communication with Laura is in the meanwhile going nowhere. If someone feels they can help I would welcome any help there.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I assumed you wrote, "cooperation is a two way street", (is that someone else's unsigned comment?) so that is the cooperation I am talking about. As for board, I meant this comment notice board, AN. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you are talking about. What cooperation? What board? Anyway she has responded, hopefully we can resolve the issue at least temporarily.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- What? You have not read what I wrote (I said approach with a vetting plan). If cooperation is a street, this board is telling the OP that they have not driven on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am seriously concerned with the fact that we seem to have some real problems with Laura's editing, she is aware of the discussion, but has chosen not to respond. I have left another message at her talk page, inviting he either here or to any other place at her choice.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cooperation is a two-way street though. And it looks as if you prefer incorrect articles to no articles? I'ld rather not have an article in an encyclopedia, than an article with such blatantly incorrect information. And if I were the Committee, I certainly wouldn't want to have a Wikimedian in Residence who contributes such incorrect and poor articles. Fram (talk)
- Games? Cooperation is not a game, here. What years of problems with Spanish translations? You appear to admit that some of the work is serviceable and you say below that there is virtually no one else who is interested in writing for Wikipedia about the Committee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Considering the years of problems with this editor, as evidenced by the comments from others here as well, this is hardly "the first step". And I have no interest in playing games to hide the incompetence (or whatever reason applies) of some editor; yes, we are interested in their work and the notable athletes, and for that reason we feel that it is very problematic that the dedicated editor for these is making such a mess of it, and continues doing so after many earlier problems. That is the message the Committee should get, not some "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". Fram (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- But, no the first step and restriction is not a total ban. 'Hi Laura. I notice you are still having problems with BLP Spanish translations: ... . Especially because these are BLPs, we should have these articles and sources vetted by people more knowledgeable in Spanish before publication (See [15][16]) What do you say?' The Committee probably believes we are helpful to each other and interested in their work that is notable, so it would be good to foster that belief, since we regularly say we produce this work in a "spirit of camaraderie and cooperation". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cruel? It's her choice to continue producing clearly deficient articles on BLPs by using completely incorrect translations (no matter how they are produced), even after the result of such actions have been pointed out. In the above linked DYK discussion from one month ago, she stated "My Spanish is good enough that I can pick up most facts, and know where there are issues. [...] I also hangout in #wikimedia-es and #wikinews-es a lot asking for clarification on Spanish I do not understand. I also have access to native speakers that assist me when I ask." If all these assurances she gave are not sufficient, then what more can we ask? She is producing English language articles for the Spanish Paralympic Committee, who probably trust her work blindly (considering that she is the Wikimedian in Residence). Isn't it cruel towards the Committee to let her continue to produce such basic errors? We know there are problems, her assurances from a month ago seem to be worthless, so the next step is to force a change. Fram (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Discuss it with her? Offer to help? HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- And how would you suggest we do this? How do you fix a translation problem? Victuallers as well says "other solutions exist", but offers none. This is not about making "value judgments", when you claim that someone works as a lecturer because you can't understand Spanish and the source says that someone has reading as a hobby, then you just aren't fit to use Spanish sources (and no, the Spanish source was not written poorly or in unusual Spanish; a sports journalist writing solely about Spanish artists should know the word "aficionado", and here the word was "Aficiones", which is very basic Spanish anyay) and when someone has had serious problems in that regard recently, but continues to create dozens of articles based on nothing but Spanish and Catalan sources, then something needs to be done. Fram (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, what on earth is this doing on an Administrator noticeboard. Fram should have discussed this on Laura's user page. That would be much closer to our standard approaches with problematic user behaviour. As for Laura's English, no it's not perfect (nor is mine), but that's the easiest thing in the world for any of us to fix. And why a topic ban? She obviously has good knowledge of the area involved, and access to good sources. The aim here should be to simply fix the translation problem. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's rather poor form to start a thread here without a serious attempt to discuss the matter with Laura privately: it's not like she's difficult to contact. I've always found her to be receptive to comments, including in relation to errors in her DYK nominations. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed with Nick and others - a topic ban should be the last stage of a process that has involved failed previous attempts to resolve any perceived problems and serial offending. I'm not seeing any evidence of any previous attempts at all - there's been a race on to find the biggest hammer to crack the nut, which is an abuse of the process being engaged. If you have a problem, talk to the editor about it. And the basis is weak too - many new articles on Wikipedia, even by experienced editors, are weak, contain misunderstandings of sources etc... then the Wikipedia community fixes them up. Orderinchaos 08:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see her Australian colleagues are rushing to her defence. No, Laura Hale has consistently demonstrated a cavalier attitude to the use of sources; that is why she's been effectively chased out of Australian paralympic topics, where like a rapid bulldozer she created hundreds of article stubs that were marked by the poor use of sources and consequent factual errors—not to mention the display of a talent for appallingly bad prose. Something more substantive needs to be done to stop damage to the project. There are so many examples, but here is one where the BLP subject came along and corrected bloopers herself. You wonder whether Hale actually reads the sources she quotes.
"what's not entirely clear to me from Fram's summary is whether someone has tried to have a conversation with Laura about this"—The problem is that anyone who approaches Hale concerning her substandard editorial practices is likely to be slapped in the face. That's what happened to me. So my advice is: don't dare to. Tony (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, I'm not a "colleague", nor are most here - I write on political and geographic topics, as a cursory inspection of my edits would quickly demonstrate. And I think it's a little misleading to not note your own mile-wide conflict of interest with regard to Laura - it'd be fair to say you don't like her very much for reasons that have nothing to do with WP and everything to do with the internal politics of a national chapter neither of you are part of any more. Orderinchaos 15:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The more I look into this, the less I believe that a topic ban from using Spanish sources is really sufficient. Looking at random articles she created the past few months, I stumbled upon Cesar Neira Perez. It contains the sentence "He was the number one cyclists to finish in the Road Trial race." What is intended is that he won the gold medal at the Individual time trial, i.e. at the Cycling at the 2008 Summer Paralympics – Men's road time trial, where he is still a redlink BTW (the article she created should be at Cesar Neira). "Contrarreloj en Carretera" can literally be translated as "Trial in Road" or "Road Trial", but certainly in a cycling, sporting context, it is the road time trial that is intended. And "the number one cyclists to finish"? Well, that sentence seems to be a stock phrase, looking at Juan José Méndez Fernández: "He was the number three cyclists to finish in the Road Trial LC4 race." "He was the number two cyclists to finish in the Road Trial LC4 race. He was the number three cyclists to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC4 race." But there are equally incorrect variations, like in Roberto Alcaide García: "He was the first racer to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC2 race." "He was the second racer to finish in the Individual Pursuit track LC2 race. He was the third racer to finish in the Road Trial LC2 race." Perhaps he really was the third racer to finish, but that is totally unimportant. If he finished third though, and won a bronze medal, then perhaps that should be written a bit more clearly? I don't know whether LauraHale doesn't understand sports or doesn't copyedit her articles, but really, this kind of crap should not be created by someone with her credentials.
Two days ago, she added "[...]he was a participant in the awarding of the Medals of Asturias component, [...]". What meant is that he was awarded a Medal of Asturias. In the same series of edits[17], she incorrectly removed the 1992 participation and medals this athlete won. Editors which are supposed to be knowledgeable in the field, but start removing correct and fundamental information (Paralympics participation and medals are quite essential info for a Paralympic athlete), make Wikipedia worse, not better, with little chance of being swiftly being corrected as they are implicitly trusted, and working in a field with very few editors. Fram (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Not understanding Spanish, or sports, or both? Juan Emilio Gutiérrez Berenguel: "He also participated in road events, finishing one event in eleventh place in a thirteen deep with a time of 1:42.51.[4][11]" This rather vague sentence refers to the Cycling at the 2012 Summer Paralympics – Men's road race C1–3, where he finished 11th in the time given (note that he still is a redlink in that article). So where does the "thirteen deep" come from. Well the actual field had 40 cyclists, of which 26 finished, but the source LauraHale used, [18], states "En la clase C3, Juan Emilio Gutiérrez fue undécimo (1:42.51), seguido de Juan José Méndez (1:43.32) y Maurice Eckard (1:43.32)." Logically, if you finish in 11th place, and there are two people behind you, then the field was 13 deep, no? Well, no, not if the source really means "followed by two other Spaniards (given) among a number of riders from other countries (not interesting to our readers, so not given)".
Her articles are filled with these errors, uninformative sentences, oft-repeated phrases, misconceptions, and so on, and I don't know what the best solution is to deal with it. Wikipedia:Competence is required comes to mind. With an editor with hundreds of DYKs and so on, it is not as if they are still learning the requirements. Fram (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- If what you say is true you'd need to provide sufficient evidence of mass errors in everything she creates. She's created a staggering number of articles on Spanish paralympians and I'd need to see examples of multiple serious errors in articles to warrant a ban. At the end of the day she's a volunteer here and doesn't have to bother. I'm curious Fram, do you suspect she's being paid to do this? This really doesn't seem to be the right place to make such a proposal and as you can see most of the editors who've turned up are Australian who know Laura and it's hardly going to attract a neutral investigation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Of course she doesn't have to bother, that's hardly the point. I have no idea if she is paid or not, that's not really essential (although I would consider it a waste of money if she was); I notice loads of problems (probably not in every article, but in way too many), and no signs of improvement or even recognition of the problems. She has now responded on her talk page concerning this[19], claiming e.g. that "The three examples Fram provided were not about translation errors. One was a typographical error. One was contorting the English language to avoid close paraphrasing from a translation. The third was a misunderstanding of a topic, not an issue of translation." The third she refers to is putting "works as a lecturer" instead of "hobby is reading"; I fail to see how this "misundestanding of a topic" can be anything but an issue of translation, but feel free to provide an explanation that is not less charitable than "translation issue" (I don't think she doesn't know the difference between work and hobbies, and I also don't believe that she was deliberately including false information here, so which explanations remain possible?). Fram (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Dr. Blofeld: I think you are going too far in your defence of LauraHale. You are acting ignobly to the extent of casting aspersions on the motives of Fram even when the proof of Laura's incompetence is for all to see. Yes, we should stick up for fellow DYK contributors, but don't let blind loyalty obstruct the real goal of improving WP. Languages are full of intricacies, and many do not become apparent until you become an advanced user who understands the culture as well as the words themselves. LH is so obviously out of her depth with Spanish. She does not understand it properly to make good sense of the story, which explains why this is a recurring problem. I think you, of all people, should be having private words in her ear to get her to amend her ways before the community does with blunt force. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- How am I going too far in defending Laura??? I think my response has been fairly neutral. All I know is that Fram for a very long time has not approved of Laura and he felt that way long before she even began working on Spanish articles, it stems from her earliest Australian sportspeople articles. If every article Laura produces does contain major translation errors then this is a clear problem and needs to be solved. I've simply said that I really want to see evidence that she's consistently makes translation errors. A handful of articles with minor issues out of several thousand Laura has created isn't enough for me to think that a ban from Spanish translation would be necessary. Rather I'd urge her to slow down and get a friend in Spain or on here to proof read them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I tried to talk to her at her talk page, but I got the impression she believes the percentage of her errors is low. Then I randomly took one article she created (the last one) and found four significant errors (which I corrected). So I believe this is a problem, I believe a topic ban is not the best solution (since the problem is not restricted to translation errors), and I do not see from her side any willingness to slow done. May be you can help on her talk page to take the matter further. Note that I am perfectly neutral, I do not have any issues with her, I do knot know who is her employer and I do not want to know, and our previous interaction was reasonably pleasant.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- "A handful of articles with minor issues out of several thousand Laura has created isn't enough for me to think that a ban from Spanish translation would be necessary." Not "out of several thousand", but out of the handful she created most recently. And I don't think claiming that someone works as a lecturer when what is said is that his hobby is reading is a "minor issue". And you don't need to show that every article contains such errors, if the frequency is sufficiently high then that is enough of a problem. Anyway, I have since provided a fair number of examples indicating that while the problem is not restricted to translation errors, it is very widespread nevertheless. Fram (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- How am I going too far in defending Laura??? I think my response has been fairly neutral. All I know is that Fram for a very long time has not approved of Laura and he felt that way long before she even began working on Spanish articles, it stems from her earliest Australian sportspeople articles. If every article Laura produces does contain major translation errors then this is a clear problem and needs to be solved. I've simply said that I really want to see evidence that she's consistently makes translation errors. A handful of articles with minor issues out of several thousand Laura has created isn't enough for me to think that a ban from Spanish translation would be necessary. Rather I'd urge her to slow down and get a friend in Spain or on here to proof read them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- If what you say is true you'd need to provide sufficient evidence of mass errors in everything she creates. She's created a staggering number of articles on Spanish paralympians and I'd need to see examples of multiple serious errors in articles to warrant a ban. At the end of the day she's a volunteer here and doesn't have to bother. I'm curious Fram, do you suspect she's being paid to do this? This really doesn't seem to be the right place to make such a proposal and as you can see most of the editors who've turned up are Australian who know Laura and it's hardly going to attract a neutral investigation.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, so long as you tried to speak to her and are convinced that she is genuinely causing a major problem with every article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Again, someone doesn't need to be "causing a major problem with every article" to get a restriction. There are major problems with too many articles, but that doesn't mean that every article is problematic (nearly all have more minor problems though). As for speaking with her, in the past I had a discussion with her about incorrectly using Spanish sources (on the Flat Bastion Road article), I tried to keep her out of DYKs because she had too many problems there, and there was the DYK discussion of last month regarding a major hook mistake due to an incorrect translation. I didn't have a further discussion on her talk page, having received the impression from those discussions that that would not have been welcomed or fruitful at all. Before the note about the December DYK discussion, the last time I went to her talk page was to inform her of the deletion discussion for Template:2012 Australian Paralympic Ski Team, which she had created. Fram (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So, is it your proposal now that Laura Hale be banned from Wikipedia for incompetence? Since your first proposal is failing, is it wise to go long? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I am further researching her contributions, and encounter further major issues, some directly related to the original post, some more tangential but not less problematic. Any thoughts on how to resolve this are welcome, but I no longer think that simply restricting her use of Spanish source will be sufficient (nor the help of editors who have a better knowledge of Spanish and are willing to help). It seems to be a more general problem with her editing, as seen in the above examples and in the comments of people who noticed the same when she was working on articles for Australian athletes. Mentoring may be a possibility. Requiring her to go through AfC, which was recently imposed on another long-term contributor, is also possible. Letting her continue as before is also a possibility, but I fail to see why nyone would support that. Fram (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Has there been an RFC/U? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Has there been any somewhat successful RfC/U on any well-established editor in the last few years? Fram (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- That probably depends on what one means by success: 1)Identifying the problems? 2) having a good discussion about it? 3) leading to mutual understanding? 4)leading to resolution? or 5) leading to a basis for further action? Some have probably had some success in some of those areas but not in others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Whoever suggested that Laura didn't aware of this or calling it "serious lack of AGF" should give their head a little shake. During the discussion in DYK last month, it already mentioned Spanish issue. That's sufficient to say that she's been given notice (or warning, depending on how you see it) to be careful with it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I see merit in an RfC/U, mainly because discussions like this end up in a wall of text which discourages passers-by. I have noticed her name pop up in a few discussions like this, and I think it is worth a well-structured RfC with all the evidence in one place (sorry Fram). I have not looked into her editing myself as have been busy elsewhere but this seems to be popping up frequently enough it needs some sort of more formal resolution one way or the other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Whoever suggested that Laura didn't aware of this or calling it "serious lack of AGF" should give their head a little shake. During the discussion in DYK last month, it already mentioned Spanish issue. That's sufficient to say that she's been given notice (or warning, depending on how you see it) to be careful with it. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- That probably depends on what one means by success: 1)Identifying the problems? 2) having a good discussion about it? 3) leading to mutual understanding? 4)leading to resolution? or 5) leading to a basis for further action? Some have probably had some success in some of those areas but not in others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Has there been any somewhat successful RfC/U on any well-established editor in the last few years? Fram (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Has there been an RFC/U? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, I am further researching her contributions, and encounter further major issues, some directly related to the original post, some more tangential but not less problematic. Any thoughts on how to resolve this are welcome, but I no longer think that simply restricting her use of Spanish source will be sufficient (nor the help of editors who have a better knowledge of Spanish and are willing to help). It seems to be a more general problem with her editing, as seen in the above examples and in the comments of people who noticed the same when she was working on articles for Australian athletes. Mentoring may be a possibility. Requiring her to go through AfC, which was recently imposed on another long-term contributor, is also possible. Letting her continue as before is also a possibility, but I fail to see why nyone would support that. Fram (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Now I looked into her last created page (Jan 4), and reported the results at her talk page. On top of the awkward prose (which I may be wrong about as a non-native English speaker) I found at least four issues, some of which might originate from a bad translation, and others presumably from elsewhere. Based on this analysis, (i) I believe we have indeed a problem here; (ii) a topic ban as suggested is not an appropriate solution, and I do not knwo what would be appropriate. Possibly RFC/U is for now the best course of action. There we can discuss problems, and, hopefully together with Laura, find the best way to address them. If somebody things that one randomly taken article for whatever reason is not representative please let me know, I can do a couple of more (it took me about an hour to handle this article).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This thread is a perfect example of what's wrong with Admin noticeboards, and why I am very reluctant to bring any problem to them. Anyone with any negative feelings about an editor, from any time in the history of Wikipedia, is free to leap in with irrelevant negative bullshit that shouldn't but does build an even bigger negative image of the accused for the case at hand. Those who join this massive pile-on of mud suffer no negative consequences themselves. The real case gets buried in crap. Wikipedia's justice systems stink! HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Uninvolvededitor This thread is too involved for me to jump in at this point, but you need to seriously tone it down, HiLo48. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 01:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why? Is what I said not true? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a systematic problem with the way the dramaboards work. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Why? Is what I said not true? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- This needs to end (support ban). There have been enough language and other problems with articles User:LauraHale has been writing on Spanish paralympians. Fram drafted the original complaint in November 2012 that didn't fly; she was reprimanded at DYK in early December 2013 for her now infamous "Did you know... that 2006 Spanish Paralympic alpine skier Daniel Caverzaschi was ranked 20th in the world in wheelchair tennis in October 2013?". At that time she offered her excuses and promised to be more vigilant. Her skills in Spanish are clearly not up to it, and I had suggested she voluntarily stop using machine translations. She said that she had a pool of Spanish-speakers she could call upon, but I don't see any efficacy in that from the results demonstrated hereinabove. I also see no embarrassment, contrition, nor sense that she admits to anything but a bit of carelessness. She has so far kept to her talk page, it seems that she is deliberately ducking this discussion although she was duly warned, hoping that others might think that she hasn't been adequately warned and that it will go away if she keeps a lower profile. Whilst she admits to some basic human failings, she casts Fram as the bogeyman, probably hoping that the messenger would get shot instead of her.
Fram was persistently on the back of another editor whom I (and many others) thought was close to God. They spotted the early warning signs, but it was only much later and after escalating problems that the community later realised the legitimacy of Fram's concerns and banned/blocked said editor. Although I would like to see enthusiastic editors get the benefit of the doubt, I'd say that the assumption of goodwill is wearing mighty thin. IMHO, Fram is again spot on. I hope that the community realises sooner, rather than later, that Laura is becoming a menace and needs to immediately stop, or be stopped from, using sources in a language that she does not have full mastery of. It's time for a zero tolerance approach to Laura's continued incompetence and blame game. Let it be made clear at the same time that if her "typos" (particularly when numbers get mistyped, transposed or otherwise mis-stated) are a matter of continuing concern with her work, that the community will ban her from using a keyboard to contribute to Wikipedia. I don't know if she realises she may lose her job if she gets banned from WP for any length of time, but so be it. -- Ohc ¡digame! 02:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is that what this is about? Targeting her employment? I did wonder above why Fram brought that into it. I'm sure something similar came up in a past arbcom case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- It's not "targeting her employment". You got it the other way around, as she seems to be using Wikipedia to further her own ends. But note that she's not doing her "employers" any favours either with the very blatant errors she is committing. Oh, I wonder how they would react if they knew the truth... -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- That seems like a pretty serious allegation. Do you have any evidence for it? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not interested in dishing out any dirt. Go look elsewhere. -- Ohc ¡digame! 03:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose from editor 9,600 mi / 15,400 km from Australia. As previously noted, concerns should be discussed with editors before raising them on AN or ANI. NE Ent 03:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. There is good evidence on both sides, but not good enough to merit a topic ban, and yes, I looked at the diffs. Viriditas (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support, part of along-term pattern. Graham87 08:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support - this is a long-term issue with this user not confined to DYK, but which also extends to GAC and FAC. I cannot in good conscience oppose this topic-ban when this user continuously flouts editorial process and shows a lack of discipline in their editing. Quality not quantity. When a user focuses on the creation of poorly-reviewed, poorly-sourced and poorly-written content, there exists a problem. James (T • C) • 9:27pm • 10:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support per James above. Andreas JN466 23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support Compelling evidence that suggests long-term poor QA & disregard for community concerns. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
More evidence
Yesterday, I noted how she removed correct pertinent information in these edits[20]: the article stated correctly that José Manuel González had participated and won medals in the 1992 Paralympics, but LauraHale removed this for unknown reasons.
Picking other articles she created on Spanish Paralympians randomly, I came across two table tennis players, Tomas Pinas and Álvaro Valera. The sentence "He played table tennis at the 2004 Summer Paralympics, 2008 Summer Paralympics, 2012 Summer Paralympics and the 2012 Summer Paralympics." (with the repeat of the 2012 Games) appeared in both articles, which caught my eye. Looking further, it appears quite strongly that she copied the (at first glance basically correct, despite two different birthdates) Pinas article to create the Valera article, and couldn't be bothered to do even the most basic checks. The result is that the Valera article starts with "Alvaro Valera Muñoz-Vargas (born October 16, 1982 in Seville) is a Class 3 table tennis athlete from Spain." (Pinas is a Class-3 athlete, Valera is a Class-6 to Class-8 athlete), and that his main achievements include "In 2008, he finished third in the Class 3 singles table tennis game. In 2008, he finished third in the Class 7 men's singles.", which would be a unique combination. Obviously, the first bronze medal was Pinas', not Valera's.
To add insult to injury, by copying the Pinas article, who started participating in 2004, she somehow missed that Valera also competed in the 2000 Paralympics, where he won a gold medal. So she wrote an article where she categorized a Paralympian in the wrong category, awarded him the wrong medal, and omitted the most important of his participations and medals. Fram (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Trying to find a source that says he competed in 1992 paralympics - not used to looking for stuff like this....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Take a look at these five pages:
- Antonio Delgado Palomo: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 11:19, 30 October 2013): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
- Julio Gutierrez García: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 12:14, 30 October 2013): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
- Eloy Guerrero Asensio: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 12:16, 30 October 2013): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
- José Santos Poyatos: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 16:39, 30 October 2013): 14 years old at the time of his Paralympics
- Francisco Benitez: born March 26, 1962 (created by LauraHale 10:36, 6 November 2013): 10 years old at the time of his Paralympics
Every single article created by LauraHale needs thorough fact checking for even the most basic facts. These are not occasional mistakes; this is a systematic lack of applying the minimal care that can be expected before posting something to the mainspace. We all make mistakes, but I have rarely encountered someone who does this so frequently and fundamentally, and gets away with it. Fram (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Formal proposal
In view of the ongoing damage to the project being caused by Laura Hale's insufficient knowledge of the Spanish language and her poor editorial practices, any article text she creates and/or edits that is derived from Spanish-language sources should be worked on first in a sandbox, and be transferred into mainspace only when endorsed as acceptable by at least one editor from each of the following classes—those with sufficient skills in:
- both Spanish and English, to review and endorse each of her translated texts; and
- English, to review the quality of the prose.
This proposal, which I suggest should be a 90-day trial, would involve Laura Hale's informing AN of the editors who have agreed to do this, and a dated signature on the sandbox talkpage declaring that a version is acceptable for transfer to mainspace in each respect (1 and 2 above). Her progress would be reviewed at AN after the 90-day period.
The alternative would be to ban her use of any non-English-language sources. Tony (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- FWIW, This is actually a second formal proposal. The first one, which seems not to enjoy consensus, was the one started by Fram above "I would like to propose..." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I have previously mentioned on numerous occasions at DYK that I would be glad to check any DYK using Spanish-language sources. Having said that, I am not available to work for Laura Hale or to check her DYKs; considering the extremely poor quality of her work and the long-standing problems, I don't understand why she hasn't been topic banned from DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Undelete pages added by User:Ιερός
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Pleasa undelete Holy Monastery of Venerable Father David and St. David of Euboea Monastery created by User:Ιερός. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2014010410004961.--MARKELLOSLeave me a message 22:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done. FYI, this kind of thing can also be posted at WP:REFUND, and you might get a faster response there. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Pot kettle black
Hi. I am this user. I have made no attempt to hide this, and have openly admitted it several times.[21][22][23] The reason I am making log ged-out edits is that my home internet con nection is acting up, and I'm currently only able to edit from my phone. I can make l ogged-in edits from my phone, but every fe w minutes the session automatically ends and I occasionally lose edits I was working on. This is actually, I believe, the same reason my IP keeps shifting. WP:SOCK#Editin g while logged out clearly states that what I am doing is not "sockpuppetry" under these circumstances, and both User:Cuchullain and User:Ross Hill have already note d this and not reproached me for it.
There is, however, another editor who is clearly making logged-out edits in order to hound me and get away with it. The user clearly has an account, as his/her impeccable timing in reverting me [24] [25][26] indicates that he/s he has a WP:WATCHLIST and is maliciou sly watching the pages that I already edited while logged in. (The fact that I'm on a shifting IP means he/she can't be following my contributions, and I can't think of any other way he/she could know to revert me in the space of a few hours.) Cuchullain and my self both once believed that this was a specific user, but external factors that I don't want to discuss on-wiki (please e-mail m y account if you want details) have convinced me that they must be different people. However, the user is clearly either evading a block, or logging out of an active account in order to revert me anonymously.
I have been putting up with it for a while n ow, but being kettle to his/her pot as I am accused (wrongly) of logging out to make "problematic edits" (check the history and the now-archived RSN thread: all I'm doing is maintaining a limited number of r eliable, relevant English-language source s, while he/she is grasping at bogus "NOYT " straws, and making straw-man argument s about the "validity" of a barely-relevant Japanese-language source, clearly as an excuse to revert me wholesale). The most recen t string has also seen him/her revert my removal of problematic OR that I am trying to discuss on the talk page: he/she has provided no explanation of why the removal is being reverted.
I don't know how to properly deal with this , but can someone please ask him to disclose the name of his/her account or something?
182.249.240.17 (talk) 09:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- If you can get a clean connection on your mobile device, why can't you log in to edit? BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- It would appear that the cookies, needed to stay logged in, are lost. The edit page, including the token needed to save the edit, aren't. The statement made in the first paragraph is technically quite possible. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I know that on some browsers there are settings that automatically deletes cookies whenever a session is ended or whenever a browser tab or window is closed. I have done this on my phone hence why I never edit on my phone. If there is a connection issue that causes sessions to end automatically, then this is entirely reasonable/ Blackmane (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for those explanations. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Notified (and welcomed, in case it's not a dynamic IP) the editor in question. All the best, Miniapolis 21:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I know that on some browsers there are settings that automatically deletes cookies whenever a session is ended or whenever a browser tab or window is closed. I have done this on my phone hence why I never edit on my phone. If there is a connection issue that causes sessions to end automatically, then this is entirely reasonable/ Blackmane (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Are next userpage promotional
I'm not sure but are next userpage User:Azarel63 promotional, if yes, please delete.--Musamies (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sure looks like it. Per his talk page he's had an issue with the images he's using (not properly licensed ) and the page itself has been nominated for speedy deletion as an advertisement. I'll drop a note on his page, as it doesn't look like he was notified. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh 11:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Update links in a couple blocks
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The blocks on 198.38.10.1 and 80.239.242.0/23 currently point the user to WP:ACC's old URL on the Toolserver. The tool was recently moved to Wikimedia Labs, so I was wondering if an admin could change the block reasons to use the Tool's new URL at https://accounts.wmflabs.org/? FunPika 11:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've done the block by User:MuZemike because he is no longer an admin. But please ask (or check with) User:King of Hearts to change his block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Request for page move
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have performed a non-admin closure of a multi-move request at Talk:Happiness? (Roger Taylor album), and have carried out three of the four moves, but the final one is blocking because the proposed title is on the blacklist. Presumably this is due to the three exclamation marks, but this is the way the move has been requested and is also consistent with the current title of the article.
The move in question is:
Please could an admin carry this out for me? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Done--Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
help with new user
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am having problems dealing with a new editor (User talk:68.201.99.145) that believes I am racist and calming lies, discrimination and hatred towards my edits. Can I get a third party to look over all this as i am afraid i did not approach the problem properly. The editor is currently blocked for disruptive editing in regards to edit-waring and personal attacks. -- Moxy (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- To start with, I reminded them to remain WP:CIVIL. If they ignore this reminder, I will have their talk page access removed. If they choose to be civil, one could discuss the issue further.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Are you sure a twenty-four-hour block is enough? With this user, I'm sensing some WP:NOTHERE. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 01:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- That was not my block. Anyway, I removed their talk page access, and if they continue after the block expires, I am prepared to block them for a longer period.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Are you sure a twenty-four-hour block is enough? With this user, I'm sensing some WP:NOTHERE. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 01:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Request block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is an ongoing case, please see: [27]. The latest puppet is User:Internuclear. Thanks for any help! Ruigeroeland (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Personally, I wouldn't want to admit that I got indef-blocked from Wikipedia because of something as silly as making inappropriate insect stub articles, but, well, I'm surprised the user didn't create articles on ducks, because I sure hear one quacking. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 01:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Haha, yeah. I heard it too.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Jmh649 abuse of position as administrator
There is currently a NPOV discussion going on at the NPOV Noticeboard here and here. I placed a NPOV template at the top of Circumcision to notify new users about the NPOV discussion so they can participate. User:Jmh649 has removed the template several times which can be seen in the following diffs, 1, 2, and 3. I gave him a warning here, he reacted to this by threatening to block me here.
I should also point out that User:Zad68 is also one of the users involved in the content dispute at Circumcision who does not believe there is a NPOV violation. ScienceApe (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see what the problem is here. You made three reverts and then Jmh649 told you that you might be blocked if you continue. He was correct--you should expect a block if you break 3RR. He didn't say I will block you, so there's no issue with admining while involved. I'm not sure why you're reporting Zad68 either, he's certainly free to maintain that the article is NPOV. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So anyone can remove a NPOV template at the top of an article even when there's a ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, and the template explicitly states not to remove it while there's a NPOV discussion going on? I didn't report User:Zad68, I merely mentioned that he is one of the users involved in the NPOV discussion and his position. Indeed he did not explicitly state he would block me, but the impression I got was that he would use his administrator powers without going through the proper channels. ScienceApe (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The status of an NPOVN discussion is not the only valid reason for removal, as stated in the {{NPOV}} documentation. It's one of those other reasons that Doc James discussed with you in your conversation with him about it on his User Talk.
Zad6803:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC) - (edit conflict) Anyone is free to boldly add a template to a page they feel is non-neutral, but if it is reverted, then it's time to discuss. See WP:BRD for the relevant practice. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- You don't understand. We've been discussing for a long time and getting no where. Please visit the relevant discussions here and here. It has all the information. Long story short, we have been discussing for months now and getting no where, that's why I took the discussion to NPOV Noticeboard. User:Jmh649's edits have not been constructive, he has been trying to stifle any changes to the status quo. He's pushing an agenda based on the evidence I cited at the NPOV Noticeboard, that's why he's removing the NPOV template. ScienceApe (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So it sounds like you tried to change the article and failed to get consensus, and now you want to tag it to reflect your disapproval, correct? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- NO I DID NOT. I never tried to make any edits to the article besides putting that template on the top recently, and you can check the edit history if you don't believe me. I only made suggestions and remarks on the talk page, all were stonewalled by Zad, and Jmh649. You first strawmanned me by implying that I'm reporting Zad when I didn't, and now you made baseless assumptions about my editing behavior without even reading the relevant pages I linked. ScienceApe (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I apologize if I misunderstood things, but it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. Based on what? I only started the discussions at NPOV Noticeboard a few hours ago. ScienceApe (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I apologize if I misunderstood things, but it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- NO I DID NOT. I never tried to make any edits to the article besides putting that template on the top recently, and you can check the edit history if you don't believe me. I only made suggestions and remarks on the talk page, all were stonewalled by Zad, and Jmh649. You first strawmanned me by implying that I'm reporting Zad when I didn't, and now you made baseless assumptions about my editing behavior without even reading the relevant pages I linked. ScienceApe (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So it sounds like you tried to change the article and failed to get consensus, and now you want to tag it to reflect your disapproval, correct? Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- You don't understand. We've been discussing for a long time and getting no where. Please visit the relevant discussions here and here. It has all the information. Long story short, we have been discussing for months now and getting no where, that's why I took the discussion to NPOV Noticeboard. User:Jmh649's edits have not been constructive, he has been trying to stifle any changes to the status quo. He's pushing an agenda based on the evidence I cited at the NPOV Noticeboard, that's why he's removing the NPOV template. ScienceApe (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The status of an NPOVN discussion is not the only valid reason for removal, as stated in the {{NPOV}} documentation. It's one of those other reasons that Doc James discussed with you in your conversation with him about it on his User Talk.
- So anyone can remove a NPOV template at the top of an article even when there's a ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, and the template explicitly states not to remove it while there's a NPOV discussion going on? I didn't report User:Zad68, I merely mentioned that he is one of the users involved in the NPOV discussion and his position. Indeed he did not explicitly state he would block me, but the impression I got was that he would use his administrator powers without going through the proper channels. ScienceApe (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Small detail, you are also threatening to block Jmh649. Seems like a case of sour grapes. The Banner talk 02:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I warned him which I stated in the beginning because he was removing the NPOV template. ScienceApe (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So? You warned him that the next step could be a block, but due to the same type of behaviour he warned you that the next step could be block. So no issue here about misusing admin-rights as warning is a normal process during an edit war, giving you (and him) the chance to stop. But instead you tried to use a Plan B to get rid of somebody opposing you while involved in a content discussion. If you have promised Santa to be a good boy this year, don't be shocked when he has some penalty points in his book... The Banner talk 03:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- ScienceApe is not an admin and cannot "threaten" a block. At best they can threaten to report. The same does not apply to Doc James: their warning on ScienceApe's talk page can easily be read as saying "I will block you". I have suggested to Doc that they use the standard edit-warring template, which is more neutrally worded. A personally tweaked warning from someone who also is an administrator can easily be read as a threat, so in that sense the complaint here is justified--but I don't see the need for any administrative action at this point, except to reiterate the general point, that in specific situations admins should avoid sounding like admins if they are primarily editors in that situation. And let me add that there is no proof of abuse here. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So anyone can remove a NPOV template at the top of an article even when there's a ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, and the template explicitly states not to remove it while there's a NPOV discussion going on? ScienceApe (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's not what the documentation at {{NPOV}} says. Are you not actually reading the documentation for the template you're trying to use?
Zad6803:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- I'm talking about what it says on the template. "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2014)" ScienceApe (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Click through to the template documentation and read that. Following what the template documentation says should resolve this.
Zad6803:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- I already read it. On what grounds are you justifying the removal of a NPOV template on an article when there's an on-going discussion at NPOV Noticeboard? ScienceApe (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry we're having so much trouble communicating. Maybe somebody else can help explain what the documentation says.
Zad6804:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry we're having so much trouble communicating. Maybe somebody else can help explain what the documentation says.
- I already read it. On what grounds are you justifying the removal of a NPOV template on an article when there's an on-going discussion at NPOV Noticeboard? ScienceApe (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Click through to the template documentation and read that. Following what the template documentation says should resolve this.
- I'm talking about what it says on the template. "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2014)" ScienceApe (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- That's not what the documentation at {{NPOV}} says. Are you not actually reading the documentation for the template you're trying to use?
- So? You warned him that the next step could be a block, but due to the same type of behaviour he warned you that the next step could be block. So no issue here about misusing admin-rights as warning is a normal process during an edit war, giving you (and him) the chance to stop. But instead you tried to use a Plan B to get rid of somebody opposing you while involved in a content discussion. If you have promised Santa to be a good boy this year, don't be shocked when he has some penalty points in his book... The Banner talk 03:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes I warned him which I stated in the beginning because he was removing the NPOV template. ScienceApe (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Is there still a basis for this to be here as an open discussion at WP:AN?
Zad6803:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is why I mentioned Zad68 in my initial post. I wasn't reporting him as Mark Arsten's suggested. I mentioned him because Zad68 is on User:Jmh649's side. ScienceApe (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the above suggestions to read the NPOV documentation, a simpler idea would be to think how Wikipedia would work if anyone was able to slap an unmovable POV tag on an article. There would be lot of tags if they could not be removed until everyone was happy. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- You haven't read the discussion. This isn't something that I slapped on there haphazardly. This is the result of months of constant and fruitless debate on the talk pages. Further, I'm not the only one who believes there is a NPOV violation. In fact I did not act on this until User talk:Hans Adler made this comment. At that point I believed there was enough dissent to challenge the status quo. ScienceApe (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The basis of your NPOVN discussion is IAR. So you are basing your proposed article content changes on a head count of like minded editors instead of high quality sourcing and Wikipedia content policies??
Zad6804:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- So far, I see no evidence of "abuse of administrator powers" by Jmh649. I see him acting as an editor in a content dispute. I have read the discussion on the talk page and at NPOVN, and I agree with the point that Johnuniq made above. Tags should not remain on an article indefinitely just because one or two editors dislike the current version. This article should be neither pro nor anti circumcision. It should remain balanced.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should have said he abused his position as an administrator to intimidate me with a block, which is just as egregious of an abuse as actually blocking me. Whether or not he was going to block me himself is independent of the fact that that's the impression I got from his warning. Strawman fallacy, the tags were never on the article indefinitely, I put them on earlier today, furthermore the intention was never to keep them on indefinitely. I only intended for them to be on the article until the NPOV discussion was over. ScienceApe (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- No, you are strawmanning me again and misrepresenting my position. I was explaining what was the impetus for me to bring the issues that we've been having for months to NPOV noticeboard to demonstrate to Johnuniq that this wasn't a haphazard thought based solely upon my own will. I can't count how many times you've strawmanned me, and I'm getting tired of it. Please stop it. ScienceApe (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously? I was simply letting you know that if you continue reverting you may get blocked. It was just a heads up. You are more than welcome to ignore it. I will not be blocking you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be best if both of you were blocked for edit warring. The user, no matter how misguided he may be, was trying to point readers to a NPOV concern via a link to a discussion in the template. You showed up and bit his head off. You might have caffeine running through your veins, but it would be nice if the "stimulated" amongst us would slow the fuck down and discuss things once in a blue moon. I'm not seeing much discussion about the tag but loads of reverts. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I propose a better idea. Leave the NPOV template on the article until the NPOV discussion is over. Then you can remove it. Leave us both unblocked so we can participate in the NPOV discussion. ScienceApe (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be best if both of you were blocked for edit warring. The user, no matter how misguided he may be, was trying to point readers to a NPOV concern via a link to a discussion in the template. You showed up and bit his head off. You might have caffeine running through your veins, but it would be nice if the "stimulated" amongst us would slow the fuck down and discuss things once in a blue moon. I'm not seeing much discussion about the tag but loads of reverts. Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously? I was simply letting you know that if you continue reverting you may get blocked. It was just a heads up. You are more than welcome to ignore it. I will not be blocking you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- So far, I see no evidence of "abuse of administrator powers" by Jmh649. I see him acting as an editor in a content dispute. I have read the discussion on the talk page and at NPOVN, and I agree with the point that Johnuniq made above. Tags should not remain on an article indefinitely just because one or two editors dislike the current version. This article should be neither pro nor anti circumcision. It should remain balanced.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The basis of your NPOVN discussion is IAR. So you are basing your proposed article content changes on a head count of like minded editors instead of high quality sourcing and Wikipedia content policies??
- You haven't read the discussion. This isn't something that I slapped on there haphazardly. This is the result of months of constant and fruitless debate on the talk pages. Further, I'm not the only one who believes there is a NPOV violation. In fact I did not act on this until User talk:Hans Adler made this comment. At that point I believed there was enough dissent to challenge the status quo. ScienceApe (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding the above suggestions to read the NPOV documentation, a simpler idea would be to think how Wikipedia would work if anyone was able to slap an unmovable POV tag on an article. There would be lot of tags if they could not be removed until everyone was happy. Johnuniq (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is why I mentioned Zad68 in my initial post. I wasn't reporting him as Mark Arsten's suggested. I mentioned him because Zad68 is on User:Jmh649's side. ScienceApe (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence of a NPOV issue. Having a couple of editors show up (a number of which are WP:SPI) who disagree with the best available evidence (recent systematic reviews and meta analysis) complain does not make it so. No one has been able to articulate an issue on the talk page here [28]. This is a requirement per the NPOV template. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The talk page clearly links to the NPOV/N discussions, so the intent of the requirement is met. NE Ent 11:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
First of all Jmh clearly went WP:3rr. Secondly WP:ADMINACCT requires "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." (emphasis mine). His curt dismissive reply to SA's initial inquiry Not how it works does not meet that standard. (So how does it work, then? is the natural response). The template itself states "do not remove until" so editors invoking the fine print of the /doc should have the courtesy to wikilink it; template docs are often not read (e.g. {{hat}} documentation requires hats be signed, but that's frequently overlooked.) Finally, the path of least drama™ is to leave the tag, let the NPOV/N discussions run to a close, and then remove the tag.NE Ent 11:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Another admin failing WP:ADMINACCT. Which means it will get swept under the carpet once again. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Tell me Lugnuts, when did you stop beating your wife? Resolute 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- After I stopped punching your mother. Why do you ask? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Tell me Lugnuts, when did you stop beating your wife? Resolute 14:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
If you want to get involved in the article in question bring high quality sources as was suggested by a few others here [29]. ScienceApe is very well aware of the referencing requirements of WP:RS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I can only recommend against following the advice of Jmh649 (signing as "Doc James"), the user who passed this article as GA a year ago. The article's current owners count a position paper by the American Academy of Pediatrics (a professional organisation of physicians who mostly practise circumcision and profit from it, in the only Western country that has extremely high circumcision numbers) among the sources of highest quality, but downplay a position paper by the Royal Dutch Medical Association which comes to opposite conclusions. And given their numerical superiority there seems to be little that can be done about this. Hans Adler 17:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seeing as neither organization supports universal neonatal circumcision I do not see this contradiction of which you speak. Neither organization supports a ban either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is true that the KNMG doesn't support a ban, but here is why: "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation. However, the KNMG fears that a legal prohibition would result in the intervention being performed by non-medically qualified individuals in circumstances in which the quality of the intervention could not be sufficiently guaranteed. This could lead to more serious complications than is currently the case." [30] But this doesn't fit your narrative of circumcision as an entirely rational, beneficial, painless and harmless procedure which is merely rooted in tradition. For a start, it contains the word "mutilation", which of course is essentially taboo on the article because it sounds so negative. (It does appear once, under "Aboriginals".) So you keep marginalising this just like you are marginalising sources that cover circumcision from a legal or cultural point of view. Hans Adler 22:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seeing as neither organization supports universal neonatal circumcision I do not see this contradiction of which you speak. Neither organization supports a ban either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Zad68 removed the POV tag with the following edit summary: "assessment of consensus at WP:AN discussion was that this tag wasn't supported, and the prerequisites for the use of the tag have not been met, as detailed on Talk page". [31] Does anyone else think that this edit summary is deceptive?
- There was and still is no such consensus in this discussion, let alone among uninvolved editors.
- Zad68 does not even claim such a consensus on the talk page, but only claims that there is no consensus that the tag should be there. (No wonder. The question has hardly been addressed between all the red herrings.)
- Zad68 is, however, hiding behind a misreading of a statement by Mark Arsten above: "Well, I apologize if I misunderstood things, but it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point." This clearly must have referred to the (false) consensus at Talk:Circumcision that has existed for years, rather than to any consensus in the present discussion. Given the state of this discussion when Zad68 wrote that [32], it's hard to believe he genuinely misunderstood the comment in this way. Where a question has not even been discussed, there can be no consensus on it.
I will now reinstate the POV tag as the article is severely biased and represents exclusively an American, pro-circumcision bias while downplaying adverse effects and the significant non-medical aspects of the practice. Hans Adler 17:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Mark has clarified his statement (below) and I understood him correctly. Will you be restoring the article to the status quo ante by removing the tag now?
Zad6818:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- The clarification doesn't help. By "the present discussion" I meant the present thread at AN, where you claimed in your edit summary that a consensus existed. There did not, and Mark Arsten did not claim it. Apparently you just put it into the edit summary because it would have been a much more convincing justification, and by referring to the talk page for details, where you misrepresented Mark Arsten [33], you got a certain degree of plausible deniability. Very unfair tactics, but not at all untypical for what has been happening at that article.
- Once again in detail, as it is tricky:
- Your edit comment: "assessment of consensus at WP:AN discussion was that this tag wasn't supported"
- Your comment on Talk:Circumcision trying to justify the revert: 'As covered at the WP:AN discussion here there isn't support for keeping the addition of the article-wide NPOV tag in place. In particular Mark Arsten's assessment of the consensus of that discussion was "it seems like there is a consensus against you at this point"'
- This was a sneaky moving of goalposts. First you claimed consensus in the present thread, which obviously didn't exist. Then you toned it down to non-existence of consensus in the present discussion plus Mark Arsten's 'assessment' (what a great word for a single editor's opinion) "of the consensus of that discussion", where "that discussion" is sufficiently vague to refer to the present thread (though you can plausibly deny that you intended the confusion) or to Talk:Circumcision (which Mark Arsten meant but doesn't make sense mentioning in this way because he's just a single voice). Hans Adler 22:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Most of your comment is you ascribing motivations to my actions that just simply aren't true. I don't appreciate the ad hominems. My only position was that there never was conensus for adding the article-wide tag in the first place, and on Wikipedia if there isn't consensus to add something to an article, the default is to return the article to the status quo ante. My reading of Mark's statement was that his assessment as an outside administrator of the discussion was that there was not consensus for the tag. Mark's clarifying statement below confirms that he did indeed say what I thought he said. Any outside admin's assessment of consensus will always be "just a single voice" because any admin is only one person at a time. Other than that, I don't feel further discussion of this with you will be productive. Feel free to help yourself to the last word.
Zad6822:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- True, but the tag is removed after consensus is determined (e.g. An afd tag stays in place until the discussion is closed). Given that discussion at Wikipedia:NPOV/N#Circumcision is ongoing, the tag should be replaced. NE Ent 22:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Most of your comment is you ascribing motivations to my actions that just simply aren't true. I don't appreciate the ad hominems. My only position was that there never was conensus for adding the article-wide tag in the first place, and on Wikipedia if there isn't consensus to add something to an article, the default is to return the article to the status quo ante. My reading of Mark's statement was that his assessment as an outside administrator of the discussion was that there was not consensus for the tag. Mark's clarifying statement below confirms that he did indeed say what I thought he said. Any outside admin's assessment of consensus will always be "just a single voice" because any admin is only one person at a time. Other than that, I don't feel further discussion of this with you will be productive. Feel free to help yourself to the last word.
- Mark has clarified his statement (below) and I understood him correctly. Will you be restoring the article to the status quo ante by removing the tag now?
- Please could somebody explain which rule was invoked when deciding to unilaterally remove the NPOV tag? Despite reams of conversation on the matter above, I am yet to see which rule it was that overrode the "do not remove this tag.....". And whatever the rule is, it also raises the question that if the tag is subject to unilateral removal by one or two people who don't agree with it, before any debate has been had, what is the point in having the tag? — Amakuru (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The specific line that justifies its removal is It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
My view is that the issue is whether there's justification for adding the tag in the first place. Per the NPOV template instructions I've pointed out, plus the other comments here, there isn't.
Zad6818:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- I asked you this before, I'll ask it again. How are you justified in removing a NPOV template from an article that has an on going NPOV discussion at the NPOV noticeboard THAT YOU AND Jmh649 ARE ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN? ScienceApe (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- To clarify my position above since I've been mentioned again, I believe there is currently a consensus about how to present the information at the circumcision page. Consensus is on the side of those who want the article to adhere to WP:MEDRS-best practices. Hans and ScienceApe found consensus against them, and want the article tagged to register their disapproval. This is improper--and it's not ADMINABUSE to point that out. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Utter nonsense, you made that remark only hours after I even made the NPOV discussion at NPOV noticeboard in the first place. The discussion is still ongoing. ScienceApe (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Unless someone can link to a diff where SA or Hans have stated they wish to tag to express disapproval, how can someone possibly know what they want? I thought the purpose of the tag was to attract discussion. If that's the case, what's the harm in letting the tag sit for a day or two? NE Ent 22:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
User:John Reaves has protected circumcision and prevented any user from adding the NPOV template to the article. When I questioned his wisdom in this, he flippantly responded as follows: Oops, I protected the wrong version. and That's the point. What is the issue here?. He added the protection despite the fact that no one had been making content changes to the article. He's abusing his admin powers to prevent anyone from adding a NPOV template to the article when there is an on-going NPOV discussion at NPOV noticeboard. ScienceApe (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Please be sure to notify John that you're involving him in this AN discussion, you may use {{subst:AN-notice}} to do so.
Zad6821:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)- Way ahead of you. ScienceApe (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Admins generally protect the current version of an article, it's nothing personal. Again, not ADMINABUSE!!!! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- He betrayed his motives with the remarks he made. ScienceApe (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- ScienceApe, have considered that your mind reading abilities may be of better use outside of Wikipedia? -- John Reaves 21:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- What the..?? John is an uninvolved admin who was patrolling WP:RFPP and responded to my request here.
Zad6821:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- He betrayed his motives with the remarks he made. ScienceApe (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Don't worry. This is normal. Just accept that there is nothing we can do to move this article to NPOV. Wikipedia is dominated by American males, an incredible proportion of whom is circumcised, often not even for religious reasons. That comes on top of the self-selection bias from which the topic suffers anyway. And of course the technical medical literature, which is biased. The latter because in the US it is written by people who circumcise, and outside (at least in the languages accessible to me) it's not a big topic at all. Yet. Expect things to change once the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany have had their say on the recent legalisation of infant circumcision, which puts parents' religious freedom above their babies' right to physical integrity. They are not going to like this, but it will take many years for a case to reach them.
- For some reason, the 'wrong version' on which an article is protected is almost always the non-fringe one when there is fringe POV pushing. That's fine. But for the same reason the 'wrong version' on which this article is protected will almost always be the more POV one. Not good, but it's no use trying to stop a river. Hans Adler 21:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Hans Adler adult white US Males have a very high proportion of circumcision, but religion is not generally the direct cause. Outside of the Jews and Muslims which may do so as a religious obligation, the rest are "medical". Now, one may certainly debate that that "medical" logic of "cleanliness" etc was influenced by morality several decades ago to try and reduce masturbation, but second level effects like that are difficult to trace. At the time of my birth (mid 70s) it was pretty much an automatic action by the doctors, without even notifying or asking the parents (which my European father was quite upset about). Now it is a much more deliberate decision. When my son was born they were very clear about asking if we wanted it or not, and providing (what I consider neutral) pro/con literature, including the common european POV of sensitivity loss and the information about minor protection from some cancers etc. My understanding is that rates are falling off dramatically, and in a generation I would expect the proportions to be quite different. My understanding is also that in the black community, the rates already dropped off 10-20 years ago. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Source discussion
So, as far as I am able to decipher, ScienceApe has provided no sources that justify the POV claim, discussion or tag, but plenty of charges of corrupt admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Read this and this and this, and then tell me with a straight face that the article properly reflects a global view on circumcision and covers all aspects of the topic with due weight. Hans Adler 23:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Belongs at the NPOV message board, or at the article talk page. Which is where the information was requested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I already listed a long list of concerns over there under its own heading. Here is where you implicitly denied that they are there, by focusing only on ScienceApe. Maybe Jmh649's trick ("I could go through these one by one but we have already", followed by a comment that will cause severe digression if I respond) made you think they have been properly addressed already. Hans Adler 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I challenged you to maintain that the article is neutral after reading these 3 sources. Instead, over at NPOV/N, you claimed that the first source is in Dutch (it's in English), claimed that all three sources are too long to read, and asked a set of questions which you afterwards revised implicitly as a question for specific change proposals and fully cited opinions rather than quick summaries: "As suspected (got a long answer above with no proposed text, and no sources backing opinion)."
- Stop this gaming. Hans Adler 00:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Belongs at the NPOV message board, or at the article talk page. Which is where the information was requested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Read this and this and this, and then tell me with a straight face that the article properly reflects a global view on circumcision and covers all aspects of the topic with due weight. Hans Adler 23:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Asking WikiProject Medicine (and its members and enablers) to stop "gaming" is tantamount to shutting down their pet project. The only thing that's going to make an impact is starting an RfC or an arbcom case. The project is involved in so many concurrent controversies it would be an easy task. They have basically rewritten site-wide policies and guidelines to suit their own local agenda (WP:MEDRS) and they will attack and revert any editor who challenges them. While I can respect and understand their personalized battle against pseudoscience, they have taken to rallying the pitchforks and torches against anyone (and any source) who challenges the incessant stream of propaganda coming from the medical-pharmaceutical-industrial complex. This has devolved from a well intentioned, good faith effort to fight ignorance and pseudoscience into an organized jihad led by the priests of scientism that has crept into every aspect of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Hans Adler: I am (still) attempting to understand what the dispute is, your long posts over there likewise gave no sources, and as the discussion there showed, ScienceApe has still not answered my question about the nature of the dispute backed by reliable sources.[34] You supplied sources here, which forks the content discussion. The discussion there shows your sources have either been addressed or don't hold up.[35] The discussion of the sources and content is still over there, where it belongs. The issue here is that there seem to be some conduct issues.
@ Viriditas, a similar situation with Cannabis, where you want to argue from primary sources, when there are scores of secondary sources available.
In both cases, if admins would read talk pages, they might address some troubling behaviors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've done nothing of the kind, but once again, you keep making false accusations. You and your project have attempted to falsely portray cannabis as a dangerous drug that threatens mental and physiological health by manipulating and cherry picking poor and biased sources. That you folks are doing this across the encyclopedia in multiple topic areas appears to be the underlying complaint, but please, continue to try and deflect your attempts at skewing articles by blaming editors for "troubling behaviors". Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- And again, a review of those talk pages will reveal who is "cherry picking" or using "biased sources". Um, since I started this section with my post, please do not remove my subhead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, a review of the sources indicates that you and the project are deliberately misusing them to push a POV. Like the claim that medical cannabis causes physiological disorders. I requested that source and reviewed it, and found nothing whatsoever supporting that claim. This is par for the course. You guys are pushing an agenda and misusing sources. And you are tag team reverting to promote your versions. Viriditas (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- And again, a review of those talk pages will reveal who is "cherry picking" or using "biased sources". Um, since I started this section with my post, please do not remove my subhead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I've done nothing of the kind, but once again, you keep making false accusations. You and your project have attempted to falsely portray cannabis as a dangerous drug that threatens mental and physiological health by manipulating and cherry picking poor and biased sources. That you folks are doing this across the encyclopedia in multiple topic areas appears to be the underlying complaint, but please, continue to try and deflect your attempts at skewing articles by blaming editors for "troubling behaviors". Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- @Hans Adler: I am (still) attempting to understand what the dispute is, your long posts over there likewise gave no sources, and as the discussion there showed, ScienceApe has still not answered my question about the nature of the dispute backed by reliable sources.[34] You supplied sources here, which forks the content discussion. The discussion there shows your sources have either been addressed or don't hold up.[35] The discussion of the sources and content is still over there, where it belongs. The issue here is that there seem to be some conduct issues.
There are some issues with this deletion request here, as I strongly suggest a lot of the multiple IP-adresses and newly created accounts are only voting against deletion because they have been rallied on a forum to do so. They are asking people to vote on this to prevent said article from being deleted, even when it has been long established to be pseudo-scientific nonsense from Brian G. Gilmartin's loveshy-theory. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
This person is once again lying for his/her own ideological benefit. All the editors and voters on that discussion except me have multiple edits on other issues and their accounts have been around for a long time. The second lie is that the term involuntary celibacy was invented by Brian G Gilmartin. This is not true and this editor will always be unable to prove it. Gilmartin invented the term love-shyness and had nothing to do with the term incel.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I was talking about the fact that you are actively campaigning for keeping the page, and there have been several IP-adresses voting to keep the page from being deleted. This to me is very suspicious and since there are several online forums dedicated to these (nonsense) terms, I got more then a little suspicious. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- If by "several IP-addresses voting to keep the page from being deleted" you actually mean one IP address, sure. Resolute 14:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- An admin will review the AFD upon closing, and discount non-policy based !votes, and also discount possible socks. Accusing someone of "lying" is not very nice ES&L 11:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is a link to the recruiting (affecting both the involuntary celibacy AFD and the Brian G. Gilmartin AFD). Because love shy dot com is blacklisted, you'll have to remove the spaces.
- http://www.love-shy.com/lsbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24171
Could someone add notice of the recruiting on both of the AFD pages? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- And another blog post (the blogger seems to be claiming to be User:MalleusMaleficarum1486). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- I added nowiki tags around the blacklisted URL and removed the spaces. That allows it to appear as text without a link. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Uninvolvededitor This really doesn't seem like a matter for AN; the {{notavote}} tag at the top of the AfD should suffice. Even so, although I am neutral about the subject's notability, I don't know if the {{notavote}} tag is necessary after all because several of the "keep" !votes are from established users. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 03:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- I added nowiki tags around the blacklisted URL and removed the spaces. That allows it to appear as text without a link. Johnuniq (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Legal threat
Pretty unambiguous legal threat from an IP claiming to represent Toll Brothers (though the IP's based in Belgium, for whatever that's worth). Since the image in question has been (very sensibly) temporarily removed from the article, and per WP:DOLT I haven't blocked the IP (though I've no complaint if another admin feels it should be blocked), but I thought it might be something worth discussing here. Yunshui 雲水 15:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure why you would classify the removal as a "sensible" response to a legal threat made by a random IP. The WMF has lawyers to deal with this. Unless they say so, this is a simple case of fair use covered by Wikipedia:Logos. --NeilN talk to me 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- The IP has been blocked and the logo restored (neither by me). US Trademark law is clar, a trademark owner cannot prevent others from using the trademark to identify the products and services when discussing them, even negatively, provided that the person using the trademark does not attempt to pretend to be the owner, nor to trade on the good will or reputation associated with the mark, nor publish anything likely to confuse the public as to who or what goods or services the mark represents. DES (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Aside from hoping that the company hire counsel that has heard of nominative use before, I suppose that someone could help the IP by posting a link on his user talk page that describes how to file a proper takedown notice, rather than making his alleged employer look silly by stuffing it into the middle of the article.
- But along those lines, it's possible that the IP isn't the lawyer whose name is given. It's possible that this was posted by someone who (perhaps legitimately) received that boilerplate letter, and is trying to publicly shame the company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Please return original talk back
User talk:Anasnetworker need some return because there are newer talk and user has been modified his own talk page with wrong year and something else.--Musamies (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure what the problem is? Nothing has been removed from Anasnetworker's talkpage. Did you mean his userpage? I have blanked it as advertising. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC).
Interlink
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to report this request. Thanks for the attention, --Horcrux92 (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, as far as I understand it, you can and should remove the wikilinks, they have been superseded by Wikidata. Bishonen | talk 17:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC).
- Most of the interwiki links present on the page are not in Wikidata, and some are used by other items. I just tried to import them, and it does not work. Somebody needs to examine every link individually before removing it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry! I assumed the user knew, but I should have checked it myself. Bishonen | talk 17:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC).
- Sorry, I thought I had added on Wikidata all the interlinks that were correct. --Horcrux92 (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry! I assumed the user knew, but I should have checked it myself. Bishonen | talk 17:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC).
- Most of the interwiki links present on the page are not in Wikidata, and some are used by other items. I just tried to import them, and it does not work. Somebody needs to examine every link individually before removing it.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
sanctions warning log idea
Based on some recent discussions on ANI regarding warnings for discretionary sanctions, and actively applied sanctions, I have created the following thread as a solution to the problems with the current situation. As this would change Admin workflow slightly for sanctions and warnings, it may be of interest to those here. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Sanctions.2FAEwarnings.2Ftopic_ban_log.2Fpage Gaijin42 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
RfC on usage of Pending Changes level 2
Please comment at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2014. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Request for deletion of incorrect image upload
While uploading a series of nonfree images, I accidentally uploaded one twice, then overwrote it. A duplicate copy of a nonfree image therefore remains at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/0/07/20140109025247!ArtieSimek1964.jpg . I believe it should be deleted under NFCC, but can't figure out an efficient way to request that. Correct file and original upload displayed at File:ArtieSimek1964.jpg. Thanx. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
