Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 21:53, 18 August 2011

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead.
Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

Bibcode Bot needs to be blocked

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC_on_the_bot-addition_of_identifier_links_to_citations causa sui (talk) 19:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The automatic bot User:Bibcode Bot is not reliably harmless or useful. Its purpose is to add Bibcode links within citations to an astronomy database. Let me repeat that. An astronomy database. However, it is adding links within citations in all articles that happen to include a journal in that database. Some general science journals cover both astronomy and medicine, say, so the database overlaps into other fields to a small extent. However, the astronomy database is useless for medical citations (and I dare say, for most topics outside of astronomy). We already have PMID and DOI links. This third link adds nothing for non-astronomy journal articles and is further clutter.

The bot's unwelcome edits have been reported on the bot's talk page here by User:Marie Poise, here by User:Looie496 and here by User:Colin. This has met with rejection by the bot owner (User:Headbomb) and edit warring to restore any reverted bot edits (this edit, and this edit, and this edit).

There is no policy requiring Bibcode links in citations and this bot should not attempt to enforce such a non-policy. It may prove to be generally useful if its scope is restricted (category, or project scope perhaps). But on the vast majority of topics on WP, its links are not guaranteed to be useful and should instead be done by a user (albeit using some tool). Editors should be free to decide which links are included in citations and to decide which are useful. Until this bot can be adapated to be 100% useful, it should not be run automatically and so needs to be blocked. Colin°^Talk 12:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking through the complaints that were made, and I do get the feeling this is a case of:

I don't like how the new citation looks like.
These links are not useful for me/for the articles in our scope.

Well:

it is a reference, it is not prose. You don't like one of them, don't click on it.
are you determining here what a reader may find useful? Or is this 'stay away from the articles in our project, we don't want your links?

As far as I can see, all the databases yield different information (sometimes slightly), and from any site there may be something that is useful - moreover, some readers may prefer one database over the other, or have specific access to it. There is also no policy to keep Bibcode out of citations, however, I would say that it should be our goal to include information which may be of interest to some. I would say that this is pretty useful, at most except to the table-creep like effect. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what Dirk Beetsra said. Also

Citation bot, Rjwimsli, and Bibcode bot has been adding these codes for a while now. They didn't suddenly become controversial overnight. Each went to extensive trials, and each had their BRFAs, etc...
PMIDs are routinely added to astronomy articles. No one's going "doctors shouldn't be able to use their own database to look up stuff, they need to use the NASA database, it is much more useful". I don't see one reason why the converse should be forbidden. Wikipedia is for everyone, and yes, that includes physicists, astronomers, material scientists, who might be reading an article on brain cancer.
The bot added the codes. They were reverted. I re-added them, not the bot, and there's a discussion. This is usual WP:BRD.
Rjwimsli added bibcodes to these very articles a while ago. My code's more advanced so he asked me to do a run on the same articles he did. He didn't get in trouble for it, so why should Bibcode Bot be blocked for the exact same thing?

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These links are not useful in the cases where editors have complained. I have clicked on the links for those I reverted. The database provided nothing useful. These were useless external links. The "are you determining here what a reader may find useful" is in fact the basis of the complaint. This bot is cluttering citations with links that are not useful outside of astronomy. If we take the hardline "editors mustn't dictate to the reader what may or may not be useful" argument, we've have folk adding links to Amazon so they can buy the book, or to their university library so they can borrow it. For an automatic bot to be acceptable its edits have to be always welcome. These edits are not always welcome.

Beetstra and Headbomb are assuming that because there is a consensus that adding links to big citation databases is generally approved and useful, that it is acceptable for a bot to enforce such links on all articles and all citations. This is the difference between guideline and policy. These bots should not be used to enforce a guideline that has exceptions.

Headbomb continues to miss the point about astronomy articles with PMIDs. I wouldn't support adding a PMID link to a journal article that had nothing to do with medicine. Whether to add the link is a decision based on what the journal article's topic is, not what WP article it is in. Bibcode links are likely to be only useful in astronomy articles (perhaps others?) and rarely useful in the 99% rest of Wikipedia.

Please can someone block/stop this bot while we discuss this. It is currently running and adding these pointless links to scores of articles. If there's a consensus to keep it, the bot can be unbocked later. There never was any wiki-wide discussion to add these links or to automate their insertion and the approval page clearly indicates the only discussions were on astronomy projects and the authors only thought that outside of astronomy, it would only affect "a few odd pages which cites a astronomy/physics journal for some weird reason ". What has become apparent is that many articles cite general science journals that are in that database and none of them are astronomy related. Therefore the original remit of the bot has been exceeded and is unwanted. Colin°^Talk 13:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop the bot pending further discussion.

There is an issue though of link overload which I don't think is being understood. Here is an example of what a reference in one of my articles looks like now that Citation bot and Bibcode Bot have gone through it: Berneman, ZN; Ablashi, DV; Li, G; Eger-Fletcher, M; Reitz Jr, MS; Hung, CL; Brus, I; Komaroff, AL; Gallo, RC (1992). "Human herpesvirus 7 is a T-lymphotropic virus and is related to, but significantly different from, human herpesvirus 6 and human cytomegalovirus". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 89 (21): 10552–10556. Bibcode:1992PNAS...8910552B. doi:10.1073/pnas.89.21.10552. PMC 50377. PMID 1332051.

It's entirely unnecessary to have all those links bloat the references section. A virology article has no real need for them; the PMC (or the doi with a |free=yes parameter) could act like a link to the article and the rest of the reference codes could be placed on an easily accessed subpage somewhere. NW (Talk) 13:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's adding the links to the same articles Rjwimsli did a month ago, per his request. Blocking is completely silly. And that link IS useful. Please unblock the bot. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is entirely appropriate for a bot that is not 100% harmless and consensual. In my perception, the bot is spamming. -- Marie Poise (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is 100% harmless, and bots do not require 100% consensus to operate. Right now it's cleaning up after Rjwimsli, on articles which already contained bibcodes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that adding additional metadata to citations was helpful. I guess not. :/ Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was being sarcastic. :) Note the quantity of metadata in the Cirrus cloud article—I added everything I could find, and no FAC reviewer complained. In fact, one actually complained about the lack of bibcodes in a couple of the citations! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I assumed nothing. You are the one enforcing that the pages in a certain subject should only use certain links to certain literature databases, and not the others. The only thing I said is that it seems that a) certain people do not like to see astronomy links on their articles (which are outside of astronomy) because they do not see the use of it, and b) certain people do not want to see astronomy links on their articles (which are outside of astronomy), again because they do not see the use of it. Although I agree that Headbomb should not have re-inserted the links when others removed them, you are now a) depriving those articles outside of astronomy (but inside your scope) for which the astronomy link would be of interest from these, while for those articles where it may not be of interest (to you, at least) are by no means harmed by having that link in a reference (again, it is not prose). Moreover, I would strongly encourage to have links to PMID's on astronomy articles, even if it not necessarily adding more info everywhere, I encourage chemistry articles to have links to all of them as well. It may not be necessary, but it utterly, absolutely does NO harm to the articles to have them (and in some cases it may even give more info).

Regarding the block, this bot was not breaking anything, these edits were certainly not making Wikipedia worse (the argument is maybe that it is not making Wikipedia better, which is a POV). I therefore think that this is a bad block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that these edits are indeed making Wikipedia worse. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And many others think these edits make it better. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed the whole point, Looie496 - You are of the opinion that it makes Wikipedia worse, but we are writing this encyclopedia for the reader .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we are benefiting readers of medical articles by adding links to an astronomy database to them. Adding that clutter makes it harder to find the correct way to access the reference source. Looie496 (talk) 17:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way to access the reference is whichever the reader prefers. Don't make decisions that readers can make for themselves. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)What is 'the correct way to access the reference source', Looie496? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually by PubMed, because it provides a lot of extra information in addition to the abstract. To be clear, I have no objection to a human editor adding a bibcode where there is any reason to think it is useful, I just don't like this automated addition of useless clutter. I don't think I'm alone in this, by the way -- I have yet to see a biologically-oriented editor who claimed to be happy about this. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am speechless that you actually answered that question. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more speechless that he would have his preference enforced and the preference of others denied. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Look, suppose you're an ordinary reader who doesn't know about all this stuff, and you are looking at this version of the optogenetics article. Look at the first reference in the list -- suppose you want to look up the source. There are three links presented to you: a bibcode, a doi, and a Pubmed link. Which do you choose? Even parsing out the links is bewildering. This just isn't a user-friendly way of doing things. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And suppose there's doi, pmc, pmid? Which do you choose? Or if there's doi only? Or if there's doi and bibcode? You choose like you choose all things. You try it. Then you decide which you like. And then you use that one (or those ones). If I just wanted to read the article, and I had to choose between bibcode and pmid, I would pick the bibcode since there's a good chance the article is digitized and available in the ADSABS database (and also often contains lots of additional information about the article). Between PMC and PMID, I'd pick PMC since PMC = free and available. If I'm interested in who cites the article, then both Bibcode and PMID, as they both cover different journals. What you choose depends on what you want. But what I don't want is someone telling me "you shouldn't have access to want you want because this is not what I want". Wikipedia is for everyone, not just medicine experts. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496, they are all going to the source, so it does not matter. Let me be clear, I have no clue about Optogenetics, I am a chemist. I will use the DOI to get there (maybe PubChem if it is there). And if an astronomer goes there they may use the Bibcode, because they are familiar with that. If you really want to enforce PubMed, because PubMed is the best way of reading the sources, you should be removing all the other identifiers (they are inferior to PubMed anyway). But if it is a personal choice that PubMed is thé only way of accessing references on medical information, then you can change that behaviour with some clever programming in your style sheets. One question, you accidentally stumble upon an article on something typically belonging in the astronomy world (something that does not have a clear relationship with medicine), and you have a reference on that article which links out via PubMed and BibCode .. which one do you chose? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"we are writing this encyclopedia for the reader" followed by "you can change that behaviour with some clever programming in your style sheets". That's pretty funny. Colin°^Talk 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is for human editors of the article to be able to make these decisions without having bot coders who know nothing about the topic area coming along and overriding them. Looie496 (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that is about the clearest violation of WP:OWN in this whole discussion, Looie496. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a violation of WP:OWN. It is an entirely reasonable request. The bots do not OWN Wikipedia. Colin°^Talk 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope this bot contains better logic than some of the arguments being presented in its favour. Like "There is also no policy to keep Bibcode out of citations" or "PMIDs are routinely added to astronomy articles." Or the logic Headbomb's using to excuse his edit warring that somehow the bot (which he runs) should be regarded as an independent other editor wrt BRD. We could do without the false arguments and the attempt to set projects against each other. Like "bots do not require 100% consensus to operate" as though the opponents of the bot suggested they did. Or that opponents suffer from WP:IDONTLIKEIT and topic-based WP:OWN because they object to a bot. None of the opponents here object to the inclusion of Bibcode links where a human brain has decided they are useful. That might be an astronomy article, a medical article or a Simpson's article for all I care. We object to the assumption that these Bibcode links are useful to all articles and all citations where the journal happens to be in some obscure astronomy database. Looie is right about our reader's reaction to the clutter of citation links. If they hit one, when reading about viruses say, and end up in an astronomy database, their reaction will be WTF, not "thanks for the link".

For this bot to be allowed to run across all of WP, it needs to have consensus approval among a wider scope of readers than the astronomy/physics projects listed in the bot approval page. Actually, following the project-notification links we find this discussion. Which consists of three posts by Headbomb and one post by Snottywong, who co-authored the bot. Great! So even the astronomy/physics projects haven't given any sort of consensus for this (unless one takes apathy for consent). This is unacceptable. Colin°^Talk 18:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been express support for the addition of bibcodes all around (do you really think the astronomy project, of all projects, would oppose this bot?). Discussion concerning bibcodes sprouted on most citation templates, several wikiprojects, and various other pages. Bot variants of bibcode-related tasks have been done in the past months before Bibcode Bot's approval, (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy/Archive_6#Bibcode_cleanup) User talk:Citation bot/Archive 1#Bibcodes, User talk:Citation bot/Archive 1#Bibcodes 2, User talk:Citation bot#ADSABS database API, Template_talk:Citation/Archive_4#Many_things_about_identifiers, etc...). Citation bot has been adding those for years now, and Bibcode Bot has been adding those for months. It's hardly something new. Should block Citation Bot from adding PMIDs and PMCs to all articles? I mean, they aren't sociology/mathematics/physics/military history/naval warfare/linguistics/haute-couture/engineering related! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your links are to a citation template talk page and to the citation bot talk page. We're hardly talking the village pump here! Do you appreciate how obscure those pages are and atypical the watchers of those pages are likely to be. Neither of these will be on many user's watchlists. Each of the "discussions" involve at most three editors. You haven't linked to even a project-based discussion (involving those other than the bot authors) where this bot's actions were discussed. You are right that the astronomy project members would likely consider this a useful tool, but even some of them might realise that setting it off across all Wikipedia might not be wise. Discussions that are pro-bibcode in citation templates or about transforming a url to a template parameter do not indicate that folk want all citations in all articles to include this database link merely because the journal is in the database. Let me repeat that I have no problem with the template containing the parameter and no problem with editors filling in that parameter after considering whether yet another database link actually adds anything (which Beetstra's example below doesn't). It is just clutter if it fails that. Filling WP with clutter is not desirable. Colin°^Talk 19:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, you are pulling things out of context here, you first say "They end up in an astronomy database, their reaction will be WTF, not "thanks for the link"" .. while exactly that is what the people get, a proper link to the proper article, only hosted in an astronomy database as I try to show below - and now you turn it into whether it actually adds anything? Yet another argument which does not hold anything, it adds exactly just as much as the DOI (which redirects to the original), or the PMID - the article title, the authors and the abstract. And again, clutter, yes, it may be clutter to you (you can edit your stylesheet if it bothers you), but it may be very useful to someone else. You keep pushing arguments where you push your preferred databases, because other databases are for you not useful, and because they clutter the page for you, that must be the same for others. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'They end up in an astronomy database, their reaction will be WTF, not "thanks for the link"... this link gets you exactly where you expect to get, to the correct article. And I stand by my argument: It is up to the reader to decide which database to follow, not those who (normally) author these articles. You are right, this is unacceptable, it is unacceptable that editors use their bias for preferred databases to link externally. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on

This dispute in this way is not getting us anywhere. While one side argues that the links can be of interest (and some of these links are already there for some time on articles outside the scope of Astronomy which suggests people don't mind, and suggestions and insertions of the link did not show significant opposition up till now), or are actually an addition for some articles, the other side argues that they don't see that it could possibly be useful to the reader in any form, and that it is mere clutter (yet another link which does not give more info and makes it impossible for the reader to find the 'proper' reference). Headbomb, is it an idea that for now the bot stays with articles in areas where the link surely is of interest (for sure within the Astronomy project, broadly construed, maybe using some setting with a list of 'allowed categories') and allow for discussion whether the link generally is of interest outside that area before (if ever) inserting them there as well (or finding other solutions like I believe is currently discussed on the template talkpages)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simpler rule that might achieve the same result would be to restrict |bibcode= addition to articles that already have one or more existing citations including a |bibcode=. Rjwilmsi 21:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is .. that that is true for many articles, also outside of Astronomy (it is even true for articles that were recently reverted). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, a highly visible article like Dog has already a BibCode for months (occasionally, next to a PMID and a DOI ...). And sure, we have Laika, but considering Dog a typical Astronomy subject .. nah. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All these articles already had bibcodes in them (many, but not all, added by Rjwilmsi). That's why the bot ran on them in the first place. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will often happen that one or another, but not all, of the citations will lead to open access copies. The one that is almost certain to is PMC, and it would therefore make sense to list that one first if available--even for articles in Astronomy. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting from the perspective of an astronomy editor, bibcode is usually useful in cases where there is online data, a non-fee copy (arXiv) of an article, or for older articles that lack identifiers such as doi. It is also useful for finding other publications by the authors because it has built-in search capabilities.

Besides the topic of astronomy, I would expect bibcode to be useful in physics or space exploration articles. Sometimes odd connections also occur because of the mythology of astronomy naming conventions (Example: Sirius and dog), or just the extensive history of astronomy. But I have no particular preference about it being automatically used in non-astronomy articles. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we unblock the bot now? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the bot is only going to run on articles that already have at least one Bibcode and that it hasn't already edited? NW (Talk) 02:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the current run covers a list of articles Rjwimsli edited, per Rjwimsli's request so the vast majority of them should have bibcodes.
The bot is slow, so it focuses on areas where it makes the most impact (usually astronomy, physics, etc...) or on requests. Right now it's running on a request. There's no point in running it twice over that list. So no the bot won't run twice over this list.
That being said, the code is refined after every run, mostly to include some journals it might have missed due to unconventional spellings, non-standard journal abbreviations, etc... So the bot could and will run on certain articles twice. But articles receiving multiple runs would be those that have either been explicitly requested twice, or those much more closely related to physical sciences & astronomy (e.g. those in Category:Exoplanets or Category:Semiconductors). Will there be runs covering topical non-physical sciences categories such as Category:Physiology? Unless someone makes the request, no, simply because it's not a good use of resources.
Will the bot ignore articles without bibcodes? No, because this is highly-undesirable. A stub like AB magnitude lacks any kind of identifiers. A run from Bibcode Bot would add the arxiv, doi, and bibcode (assuming it can find them, in this case, it would add Bibcode:1974ApJS...27...21O, doi:10.1086/190287. Citation bot would do the same, although it might miss the bibcode because its logic is not as sophisticated. But if the questions is will the bot run on stubs like Priapulites? Unless someone makes a request, no it won't.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can't unblock the bot now. Headbom has already stated that this "restriction" is no to the current list the bot is processing. So the same articles would get the same pointless clutter added to their citations. Rjwilmsi's suggestion (that the bot only add bibcode to articles that already havdifferent e bibcodes) is little more than "if the article has been crapped on already, crap on it some more" for those citations that never benefited from bibcodes. The real determinant of whether a bibcode is useful is the citation itself. A medical paper with PMID and DOI that just happens to be in an astronomy article no more benefits from a bibcode than the same paper in a medical article. But if we're looking for a heuristic to restrict where the bot is more likely to be useful then category or wikiproject restriction might help.

The main issue is that where a citation has multiple possible database or access links, some will add nothing already supplied by the others and lead to databases that are clearly off-topic. It seems to me that bibcode is always inferior to PMID. Are there any astronomy or physics papers in PubMed? There are certainly medical papers in the astronomy database. So could we restrict the bot so it doesn't add bibcode to a citation that already has (or should have) a PMID. Can anyone think of a paper that has a PMID where the BibCode was a superior database link? There may be other database than PubMed that this also applies to. So I'd like Headbomb et al to consider what they might be too. I can't for the life of me understand Headbomb's urgent need to unblock the bot. This alone makes me think he is unsuitable to determine what bots run on WP. There is no rush. We should get this right rather than clutter WPs citations and expect editors to manually clean up afterwards. If I was coding the bot, I'd have it run on the highest restrictions I can think of first and wait to see the effect/reaction. But again, I repeat that this bot has had no community approval for its actions. The approval process it underwent was a joke and was based on an assumption that it wouldn't affect non-astronomy article to any great degree: this assumption is wrong. Headbomb should come up with a new set of restrictions, experiment with those, and then re-apply for approval showing genuine support from a wider set of editors than one or two bot owners and template authors. Colin°^Talk 09:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has very reasonable heuristics. It's running on physical science-related articles, or on requests. Contrary to your claim, the bot would not "run over the same articles it currently is", and your opposition to having the bot add bibcodes to articles that already contain bibcodes is completely unreasonable. As for physics articles with PMIDs, see Physical Review Letters. 74: 2626–2631. Bibcode:1995PhRvL..74.2626A. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.2626. PMID 10057978. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) for example. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is clearly not running only on "physical science-related articles", Just look at the contributions history. A sizeable proportion of those are biological science articles. The bot doesn't have any heuristics as far as I can see. It seems that you are configuring it to run on whatever lists you come up with, so the scope of its edits, should we unblock it, are basically whatever articles you configure it to run on. You claim the bot would not run over the same articles yet at 04::00 you said "the bot could and will run on certain articles twice". Indeed, since it is run at will, on whatever set of articles you give it, Wikipedia is at the mercy of whatever you want it to run on. So not only do we have a bot with no set and approved scope, but we have a bot that will in all likelyhood repeat its mistakes whenever it is re-run on articles.

Well your example is certainly one where I would agree the bibcode is superior to the PMID and in that case a human would sensibly avoid adding the PMID because the PMID is useless clutter. Ok. So can you perhaps refine the list of journals that the bot runs with. If you can restrict it to only add bibcodes for journals that solely deal with astronomy/physics, rather than general-science journals, then I think that stands a much higher chance of success. For the journals that contain papers outside of the astronomy/physics domain, it could still be set to add a bibcode where no other database link was present (I'm not counting the DOI as a database link as that effectively leads the user directly to the article). Anything else needs to be decided by humans. Colin°^Talk 14:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read what I wrote. "It's running on physical science-related articles, or on requests'." I mentionned that several times now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that but fail to see how "on requests" is a valid scope for running a bot. So Rjwimsli has been adding bibcodes to biology journal articles in a semi-automated fashion with AWB. That doesn't make it all right for your bot to continue this behaviour with an automatic bot. It doesn't appear that Rjwimsli has been any more careful about what citations to add bibcodes to than your bot has. Come one guys. I'm just seeing false argument after false argument. It doesn't get away from the issue that this bot is adding clutter to citations and isn't selective enough in what it works on. Colin°^Talk 19:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These issues have been showing up on my watchlist, which, like Looie's, is largely neuroscience-oriented. To me, personally, it's no big deal either way, just some more blue gobbledygook in references where one can either click on it or ignore it. But it does seem to me that there are differences in perception revealed in this discussion, between some of the physical sciences and some of the biological sciences. Looking at the bot approval page, it seems that all the trials were in astronomy and physics-related areas. Outside of those areas, it's not clear to me what the "requests" have been, or whether these requests really represent editor consensus in the subject areas affected. Why not post on the talk pages of more WikiProjects, especially those that are biologically or medically oriented, and survey editor preferences? Getting, and respecting, wider input would be a way to get out of these ownership concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first defence of a bot owner is to cite WP:OWN. I'd be equally upset by a bot adding PMIDs all over astronomy paper citations. So lets just drop the false wikiproject bias argument. If this bot can't be made to have a higher hit-rate of usefulness (I reckon at least a third of its recent edits are poor) then it shouldn't be run. Colin°^Talk 19:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a rule of "don't add a bibcode if there is already a PMID or a PMC for the citation"? Rjwilmsi 21:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be very helpful as a rule for the bot or semi-automatic tools. The cases where both a bibcode and a PMID are possible can be decided by a human. In the interests of balance, the same restriction should really apply to the PMID-adding tools, though I suspect the cases where PubMed contains physics papers is quite rare (but Headbomb found one and perhaps that suspicion is wrong). Colin°^Talk 21:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some 4,620 templated citations on mainspace with both a PMID or PMC and a bibcode (cf 330,000 with PMID or PMC, 29,000 with bibcode, though note bibcodes are under-represented as citation tools have only worked for bibcodes for a few months). Of those around 2,800 are Nature, Science or PNAS (probably as expected as those journals are multi-disciplinary). However there are about 600 for Physical Review Letters. There hasn't AFAIK been any concern about PMID and bibcode for the PRL lot, but a consistent two-directional rule is probably best for the moment. I would hope that compliance to the above rule would be enough for the bibcode bot to be allowed to continue its operations. Rjwilmsi 21:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not adding a bibcode when there's a PMID would be an incredibly bad idea. Plenty of physics journals have PMIDs. Not adding a PMID to physics journals would be equally bad, because people familiar with the PMID database would most likely prefer using a database they are familiar with than one they aren't. If medicine people care about physics stuff, why should that bother physicist or physics editors? Physics (and Wikipedia) is for everyone, not just physicists. Not adding PMIDs per WP:IDONTLIKEIT is just as bad as not adding bibcodes per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Why should anyone care if someone accesses some Optics Letters article via bibcode (2002OptL...27.1932F, or PMID (18033406)? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving on, part 2

Let's refocus on the bot, rather than on meta-discussion of WP:ILIKEIT. This was the question asked:

Just to clarify: the bot is only going to run on articles that already have at least one Bibcode and that it hasn't already edited?

This was the answer

Right now the current run covers a list of articles Rjwimsli edited, per Rjwimsli's request so the vast majority of them should have bibcodes.
The bot is slow, so it focuses on areas where it makes the most impact (usually astronomy, physics, etc...) or on requests. Right now it's running on a request. There's no point in running it twice over that list. So no the bot won't run twice over this list.
That being said, the code is refined after every run, mostly to include some journals it might have missed due to unconventional spellings, non-standard journal abbreviations, etc... So the bot could and will run on certain articles twice. But articles receiving multiple runs would be those that have either been explicitly requested twice, or those much more closely related to physical sciences & astronomy (e.g. those in Category:Exoplanets or Category:Semiconductors). Will there be runs covering topical non-physical sciences categories such as Category:Physiology? Unless someone makes the request, no, simply because it's not a good use of resources.
Will the bot ignore articles without bibcodes? No, because this is highly-undesirable. A stub like AB magnitude lacks any kind of identifiers. A run from Bibcode Bot would add the arxiv, doi, and bibcode (assuming it can find them, in this case, it would add Bibcode:1974ApJS...27...21O, doi:10.1086/190287. Citation bot would do the same, although it might miss the bibcode because its logic is not as sophisticated. But if the questions is will the bot run on stubs like Priapulites? Unless someone makes a request, no it won't.

Is that satisfactory? Or is something else required? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't have thought it was satisfactory, as people kept arguing with you after you said it the first time. Repeating an argument in a discussion thread seldom makes it more acceptable I've found. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument comes from the same guy that made the original complaint and wouldn't tolerate the bot editing on articles who already have bibcodes. While he has the right to his opinions, one person should not be able to keep a bot blocked because he personally doesn't like it. Third opinions are what is required at this point. In particular, that of NuclearWarfare, who originally blocked the bot, and asked this question. This isn't a restatement of the same argument, it's asking the question, does the answer satisfy objections according to reasonable people. If yes, the bot should be unblocked. If not, then what else is required? span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to really follow this discussion in detail these last few days unfortunately. Any administrator is free to unblock iff they feel there is sufficient consensus to run the bot, which, at first glance, there doesn't seem to be. Perhaps we should move this discussion over to one of the Village Pumps so we can talk about scope and alternate proposals more effectively? NW (Talk) 18:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just came over from WikiProject Medicine. Reading through this and the linked discussions, it looks like part of bot approval is notifying affected interested editors and seeing whether there are objections. In this case, it looks like the objections are coming from editors who are involved in editing affected pages, yet were not part of projects that received the notices. Doesn't this suggest that the approval phase was inadequate (because the scope of affected articles has been beyond the scope of the approval notifications), and should be revisited? -- Scray (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know is how is "Physical science + requests" is not a reasonable scope for the bot, or how it should be modified if this is not acceptable. It's not like the bot does pure runs on weird categories such as Category:Benign neoplasms, or revert wars with editors. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The +requests bit is the problem (the physical science less so but still potentially one should the bot be run multiple times on any article). Looking at the requests list, it seems that Rjwilmsi was also adding bibcodes to citations that didn't benefit from them. So his list isn't any good either. Have you actually looked at your bot's contribution history. It might as well have been running on Category:Benign neoplasms because a good third of the articles it hits are that sort of subject. But I've already said this... Colin°^Talk 08:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to underline what Scray said. That is exactly the real issue here. I raised it in Moving on part one, from which it appears we have now moved on to part two, and Colin immediately deflected the discussion towards ownership, which was what I wanted to get away from. It's becoming very clear that "requests" includes a lot of mysterious runs in subject areas where, in reality, most involved editors could not possibly have requested anything, because we did not know anything about it until after the fact. Why not stop the bot in the "requests" areas until the "requests" have been identified and been discussed by a wider community of editors? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me, I'd be fine with that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying that! If that works for you, have we solved this complaint? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was never any consensus for this bot to run on any topic area. Show me the discussions. There's no rush to unblock this bot. It isn't a human being denied his editing rights. I'd like to see some progress towards an acceptance that the bot should be journal-citation based in its logic rather than article or request-list based, some acceptance that it should tackle only the uncontentious citations, and I'd like some assurance that next time someone complains about the bot and requests it be stopped, that Headbomb listens and doesn't require an ANI complaint before something is done about it. I'm not seeing that here so my request below stands. This ANI request was caused by a behavioural problem with the bot owner and that issue is not resolved. Colin°^Talk 21:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take a step back and let's look at what happen. The bot made an edit which you objected to. You reverted. I (not the bot) reverted once per BRD. We could have had a civil and reasonable discussion, but you categorically object to this bot doing anything whatsoever regardless of context, you're calling for my head at BAG, you want to deny me any bot-running privileges (which amongst other things would cripple WP:AALERTS that ~800 WikiProjects depend on). The problem apparently was that the bot was adding bibcodes to articles which you felt bibcodes were not warranted (and opinion differ on whether that is actually the case), this was caused by a "request" that wasn't vetted by people. I conceded that it would be a good idea to get input from people it the bot would stray outside of its usual domain (physical sciences). You "won" but that's not enough for you. No, you need my head. Blood must flow. Take a chill pill dude. Seriously.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was a bot run by you started making mistakes. You wouldn't listen when asked by three people to stop so we're here. The one who needs to chill, is the one pressing to restart a bot that isn't well designed. I don't need your head. But you aren't acknowledging any of the behavioural mistakes you've made. I think it would be good for us both to take a break from this and let Bibcode Bot sleep for a week or so. Colin°^Talk 22:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Colin, that is not what happened. The bot did not make any mistakes. This bot is doing exactly the same as Citation Bot, who also is adding PMIDs everywhere. There is no design flaw, it adds BibCodes everywhere, just as that PMIDs are added everywhere (well, if there is a design mistake, then it is that it targets articles which already have a BibCode, it should not have cared about that and just add it wherever it can). You guys don't see that, PMIDs are deemed generally useful, everywhere. But because you three (and at least one other, I believe) do not see that. You only see that it is not useful to you, and therefore you state that it is not generally useful. So please stop making this personal, and give proper arguments, because I have not seen any proper argument to why the BibCode is not useful on a medical article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why we're at ANI

We're at ANI rather than User talk:Bibcode Bot because Headbomb (the bot owner/runner) refused to listen to three [1][2][3] requests to stop the bot and reconsider its actions. Headbomb even edit warred (links at top of discussion) to restore bot edits that user's had reverted. The above discussion is a classic one of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT with editors now starting to repeat their arguments.

The contentious point is whether journal paper citations should have external links to certain journal databases, even if the scope of those journal databases is only including that paper by accident (i.e., a medical paper in ADS or a physics paper in Pubmed). Following the link to such a database is likely to be suboptimal compared to following the link to an alternative database. Headbomb appears to think it is still useful. Some editors don't care. Other editors consider these superfluous links as clutter. Regardless of the merits of each of these positions, the vital point is that this is contentious. That should have been clear on the first complaint and blindingly obvious by the third. It is not the purpose of ANI to resolve that point, though it would have been nice if we had.

Wikipedia:Bot policy makes it clear that they should only perform tasks for which there is consensus. From the above heated discussion, there is clearly no consensus for the useful scope of bibcodes. This is apparent now but it should have been discovered before the bot was run. I won't repeat the links made above but essentially the bot approval process assumed it would only affect astronomy/physics papers and the so-called WikiProject discussions didn't involve anyone other than the bot authors. There has clearly been a failure of the bot approval process.

Wikipedia:Bot policy's "Good communication" section outlines what is expected of Headbomb. This standard has not been met.

The response by Headbomb to Rjwilmsi's suggeestion ("Not adding a bibcode when there's a PMID would be an incredibly bad idea.") makes it clear to me he does not understand what the purpose of his bot should be. Nor does he appear to understand the difference between a user making these edits and a bot making them. It should not be the purpose of Bibcode Bot to add bibcodes to every single journal citation that benefits from them: that is clearly a task only a human could do. The bot should tackle the low-hanging-fruit that does not require contextual information (a human brain) to work out if it is beneficial or not. If that means that thousands of citations miss out on an automatically inserted bibcode then it is not exactly the end of the world.

Due to these issues, I believe Headbomb should be suspended from running any bot on WP and be removed from the Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group. I don't believe he understands the purpose of bots and has not shown the behaviour expected of bot owners. Colin°^Talk 08:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see we are still at the same point .. no, Colin, IMHO, the dispute is something else than what you say, arguments which you also ignore.

First, we have a bot that is adding PMID and other codes around, which adds them without any bias to the subject of the article - PMID is added withing the projects: Pharmacology (Celecoxib), Ppsychology (Biofeedback), Chemistry (Pamoic acid), Medicine (Sammy Lee (scientist), Business/Graphic Design/Media (Advertising), Food and drink (History of the Hamburger), Molecular and Cellular Biology (Melanopsin), Turtles/Amphibians and Reptiles (Painted turtle), Geology/Energy/Environment/Canada-Saskatchewan-Alberta/Venezuala (Oil sands), Indiana/United States (Indiana), shortly: everywhere. The Medicine project does not WP:OWN the PMID, there is no objection to having PMIDs everywhere, they are useful, everywhere. Note added (Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)): I did note, that some of the additions that I mention here are medical questions regarding the subjects (e.g. true on Indiana, History of the Hamburger. So I decided to have a short further look, whether the use of PMIDs outside of the typical Medical subjects was typically a medical subject which is part of the subject (for the Hamburger, the health issues regarding that is a medical issue for a non-medical subject, e.g.). I did find PMIDs in subjects from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy: Comet, Moon, Galaxy, Sagittarius A* and Pluto - where the subject of the article, nor the referenced sentence nor the reference were 'typically medical'.[reply]
Secondly, many of the articles in medicine already had a BibCode, most of them since a short time. But also articles, outside of Astronomy, have a BibCode, and some of them already for months. And I have seen only little , or no, objection against that. For examples of articles that have a BibCode: see Dog, Resonant tunneling diode, Protein, Prokaryote, Plant defense against herbivory, Physiology of dinosaurs, Organic farming, Origin of AIDS, shortly: everywhere. WikiProject Astronomy does not WP:OWN the BibCode, there is no objection to having BibCodes everywhere (except mainly from WP:MED), they are useful, everywhere.

So yes, 'Not adding a bibcode when there's a PMID would be an incredibly bad idea.' - many articles in Astronomy have a PMID, and not adding the BibCode there would be an extremely bad idea. That is also true for all articles in any other place, many articles outside of Medicine and Astronomy have a PMID, not adding a BibCode there is a very bad idea. I can turn it around 'Not adding a PMID when there's a BibCode would be an incredibly bad idea' - what, I would say 'Not adding a PMID would be an incredibly bad idea' ánd 'Not adding a BibCode would be an incredibly bad idea'. The only major objections I see are from the medical wikiproject, who argue that their articles do not need a BibCode, with as main argument 'BibCodes are useless clutter'. Who are you to say that some identifier is generally useless based on the point that it is useless to you.

Now, again:

WP:MED does not own the articles in their Wikiproject, nor do they own the PMID.
WP:MED does not like the BibCode because they are not useful to them - PMIDs are useful everywhere, no hamburger eater, chemist, or graphical designer complains about having the PMID, and I do think that having a BibCode on articles is also useful. But some editors in WP:MED simply do not like having a BibCode there.

No-one seems to think that having a PMID everywhere is contentious, but you seem to think that having a BibCode everywhere is contentious (however, you did not care for weeks (or longer) while there were BibCodes in 'your' articles. And there are more people than just Headbomb that think that it is useful, just as useful as that PMID.

So yes, maybe there is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on our side, but there is also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your side, you don't want to hear that some readers do think that it is useful to have a BibCode, also on medical articles. I, for one, do think that having a BibCode in the reference does no harm, and it may in some cases even be useful, just as it is useful to have a PMID on the history of the hamburger or on advertising. This is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OWN by the some members of the WP:MED wikiproject. They may not be useful for you (and that is what you turn into a point), but they may be useful to some, and that is why we write this encyclopedia, and why we add identifiers everywhere, because they may be of use somewhere. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For christs sake, listen to yourselves! :) This is going nowhere - same arguments round and around. Can I suggest an RFC - because this is not really an admin issue (now the bot has been stopped/blocked) and you are simply not going to get any external input of note in a thread where you have daggers drawn. Please start a neutrally worded RFC laying out the issues and the questions to resolve - whether that is broad scope (all database links added by bot) or narrow (these specific links). --Errant ^(chat!) 14:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It DID went somewhere. The "problem" (although I dispute it is a legitimate one) was that the bot was running on unvetted requests. I've agreed to stop that for now. Surely an RFC isn't required to run the bot on physical sciences articles? We can have an RFC seperatly, but that shouldn't be the condition for the bot to resume its work on physics & astronomy & related articles. This has already been vetted and approved. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An RfC on what, exactly? Whether PMID's are useful outside of medical articles (where the use of the reference is not pertaining a medical statement), or whether BibCodes are useful outside of Astronomy articles (where the use of the reference is not pertaining a astronomy statement) .. as I have not seen any proof of dispute for the former (no block of Citation bot there), I think that starting an RfC on the latter is utterly bureaucratic. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it clearly seems to be disputed - so yes, you need to discuss it. That's the basis of Wikipedia.... you can't simply ignore concerns raised by other people on the basis that it is bureaucracy :) I mean, I'm not a fan of one screaming individual being able to disrupt the process and force yards of discussion. However I flicked over the discussion above and it seems multiple people are noting concerns, if mildly, and others have done so in the past. So clearly there is an issue to iron out. @Headbomb; if you can restrict the continued bot run to Astronomy articles I will be willing to unblock you. However the issue of them appearing outside of astronomy articles seems to be unresolved, and letting that run continue will only cause argument. Stop arguing on AN, resolve the issue in the proper format et voila. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already agreed to restrict the bot to run on physical sciences for the meantime. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also; I think a general RFC on what to do about citations would be useful - because there are sensible points made above about the relevance of some of the links, and the display issues. Off the top of my head a neat solution would be to customise the citation template to show only one or two, customisable, database links per citation - with a further link/tag to "show more". Then you could add all the links regardless and simply display whichever is relevant. Seems an obvious compromise to me :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errant, you may well be right. The concerns are about the display of the citation. If we could simplify the default display and still allow additional information to be optionally dipslayable that ought to suit all concerned. Rjwilmsi 17:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited comment from a non-admin, non-scientist, humanities post-graduate: Recognising that Wikipedia is not an exhaustive scientific or technical reference, I am nevertheless inclined to favour more rather than fewer references, and all the pointers I can get to more information in the event I choose to pursue it. I favour specific references over general bibliographies, and if Wikipedia already recognises PMIDs/Bibcodes, why not ‘fill ‘er up’.

On the subject of the bot, that’s another can or worms altogether. There are far more annoying ones than Headbomb’s. Resolve the issue of bot oversight first, then zero in on functionality that might be adding potentially useless/duplicate references. But on that subject, too, I favour any lead over no lead at all, so if abstracts are not available for PMID or Bibcode references, there may be other functionality on remote indexes, like ‘See related entries’, that might offer a useful lead.

That other concern about visual clutter is surely one for the Manual of Style, which ought to reflect best practice/acceptable standards for referencing. Regards, Peter S Strempel | Talk 22:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked - but

Headbomb has undertaken to apply this bot only to physical science articles. Please take a moment to follow my rationale on this unblock - and consider the steps from here...

There is much discussion over the use of database links above. More choice, obviously, is preferable. As is less clutter. Fixing that ambiguity is not really specific to this bot - but more to how we display academic citations. Part of my hope in unblocking is to focus work on improving citation format to respond to this.
As far as I can make out the main complaint is that these DB links are not all that relevant to medical articles. I suggest those that feel (and it seems to me your view is fair) such take steps to rollback additions to such articles they find objectionable - and Headbomb takes steps to make sure that such edits do not happen (Headbomb; you are responsible for ensuring this is the case).
If the bot edits outside the area of physical sciences I suggest immediate block without prejudice, my unblock is predicated on an endeavour not to cause significant issues (and I will be keeping an eye out the next few days).
- To be utterly explicit - the rationale that the bot is editing articles that another editor has added bibcodes to is utterly inefective. I am AGF that this is not the grounds on which Headbomb is asking for an unblock. If it is I will be extremely annoyed. The category of articles should be physical sciences, where bibcodes can sensibly be expected to add detail as desired. If the bot resumes indiscriminately following another editors "whim" then reblock it.
- The bot owner is explicitly responsible for keeping to this unblock condition
I suggest that this unblock not be looked on by the bot supporters as a licences to carry on as before - your actions are requested in some areas, and rejected in others. If you want to work in those areas you must get wide community consensus to do so. There is far to much commenting in this thread along the lines of "you have no idea what you are talking about". And that is simply not constructive.

I hope this unblock works to resolve this issue - arguing on AN has little use, you are simply not going to resolve this. I suggest, as strongly as possible, that and RFC into citation database additions be started to resolve any extant issues. And that in the mean time if the bot causes any further, and clear, issues it be blocked. I, for one, consider the links of potential use in any article that can use them. But if WP:MED legitimately disputes that use then you must, must, find a compromise or consensus to address that issue. As to WP:MED - I'd request those editors arguing against these additions to help pioneer a constructive RFC into the issue and resolve the issue.

You both sides seem entrenched on this - and in that you are being ~~fucking idiotic~~rather silly. Raise the disagreement properly and incite valid third party opinion. Or your dispute will receive short shrift in future. --Errant ^(chat!) 01:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to note here, that I am not an originating party in this (but obviously have a strong view one side .. maybe I should have toned that down).

Note: User:ErrantX suggested an RfC on this, which can be found here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations.

Maybe this whole thread can now be closed? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well overdue AfD

Could someone please close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moray Laing given that it should have been done weeks ago? Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was pretty clear there. I deleted the article but am too stupid to close the discussion. Oh, the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions suck, and while I install and study that Mr.Z tool, perhaps someone smarter than me can TCOB. Thanks TT for the note. Drmies (talk)

I went ahead and closed the discussion for you. GB fan please review my editing 17:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, if it's any consolation I know of at least one other admin who couldn't figure out the coding for AfDs; the one time he tried, he accidentally closed the discussions for the full day's log. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blade, thanks--I am consoled. I feel sorry for the poor admin, who shall remain nameless, of course. Incidentally, I tried to install that Mr. Z thing, but nothing is happening yet. GB, thank you as well. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impressed that you remember that incident :-) Nyttend (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bold overhaul of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions page (see [4]), which hopefully should spell things out more clearly to administrators. Feel free to do whatever to it. –MuZemike 21:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks a lot better already. I'll give the instructions a try next time. Thanks MuZemike--we don't pay you enough. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that his pay be doubled... Nay, tripled! -- Atama頭 17:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Anyways, I've tried to model the actual close process after the instructions for closing deletion reviews, which I found to be intuitive. Another issue regards the other WP:XFDs: should we consider lumping them all into one WP:XFD/AI page, or are they all too different to combine (a good example not to might be the handling of WP:CFDs, which involve more than just simply renaming or deleting a category)? –MuZemike 21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The whole page could be replaced with a link to User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD. In all seriousness, just use the script. It's magical. causa sui (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unban of User:Tobias Conradi requested

I am posting this request to unban Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) on the behalf of NelsonSudan (talk · contribs) (see [5]; this is his unban request):

Reopen this case. Just what did Editor do to deserve permanent ban?
Wikipedia is an amateur organisation (in terms of content / banning editors etc). The facts are that one amateur editor (styled Tobias Conradi) was banned by another editor. Amateurs makinsg decisions about fellow amateurs. This is not some High Court where proper procedures re followed. We should be humble and acknowledge this. I don't know what exactly Tobias Conradi did IN THE BEGINNING to get banned....but was it really so bad? Itis hardly surprising he or she has been involved in so called "sock puppeting" since then. After all, he had no alternative....He was banned! I don't dont know the Editor in question. I have no connections. I came across this because I was leading a discussion re Dominion of India and Tobias Conradi tried to participate but what he said was deleted...Believe me, the quality of discussion there is very low. Not many editors are involved. I welcome more editors and would like to hear what Tobias Conradi has to contribute on the discussion. Give him a chance to contribute again. Wikipedia is really weak these days...so few editors and so many that just make lazy contributions. Tobias Conradi has been banned for a long long time.....Its time to let him back into Wikipedia and give him a no strings attached chance to participate. Censoring him and this permanent "gagging" is really undemocratic....and unfair given he was banned by a fellow amateur....Other editors have asked these questions above.....Its time to stop this permanent tarring of some one who seems to want to contribute.....and WP needs contributors! NelsonSudan (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

–MuZemike 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can respond to this point easy... Itis hardly surprising he or she has been involved in so called "sock puppeting" since then. After all, he had no alternative....He was banned!. There's a simple alternative, you don't edit wikipedia. This is not somebody who lost is driver's license/insurance in a city without public transport and is being asked to stay in his house. This is not somebody who has no job and is forced to steal to feed his kids. This is somebody who is being asked not to edit a wiki which is a very simple thing not to do without any real life consequences. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - too many socks, too much disruption. WP:TWP was caused a lot of work due to this editor. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various pieces of the history of this...

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi - ArbCom case on him.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction/Archive10#Tobias Conradi - The official ban discussion.

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tobias Conradi - Many of the IPs from which he socked.

[6] - His talk page before it was blanked when he was banned. (Warning, large)

- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a Standard Offer. How recently has he been socking? If less than six months, then the SO is likely not applicable yet. I'm certainly not the appropriate admin to administer such, but I'm sure one could be found, if Tobias met the other elements of the SO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5 days ago. –MuZemike 22:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Not a chance. Tobias Conradi is actively being disruptive. The person making this plea cites so many arguments that go against what Wikipedia is about, I don't even care to take the time to enumerate them. Suffice to say that this request doesn't merit any serious consideration. -- Atama頭 23:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opppose search for TigreTiger in the archives for this page; nothing has changed since then. His latest sock, Bogdan Nagachop created yet more drama. I'd have no objection to him coming back after a year of not socking and creating huge messes, as he seems like an intelligent enough person, but not now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just based on the disingenuous lying alone. He seems to think we're all idiots. Even after a checkuser busted his sock and linked it to him - he still tried to claim the sock wasn't his by calling Checkuser more or less a starchamber and demanding to see the proof (which, as we all know, isn't going to be released because we *do* have some decency). Stop considering his unblock requests, just revert, solipsism-block, and leave him to scream at a wall. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 02:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose This editor was blocked for several things, such as harassment (e.g. vandalism to user pages), edit warring and sockpuppetry (including another sockpuppet, mentioned recently by TBOTNL. He was given way too many second chances back in 2007, but that disruptive behaviour exhausted the communitty's patience, and led to his ban. Minima © (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 16#Template:ISO 15924, perhaps we should more seriously consider an unban and unblock of Tobias Conradi, as it is clear that he will continue to return to make apparently constructive edits in which users do not want deleted. –MuZemike 05:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disinclined to change my !vote based upon that, since he seems pretty insistent on denying who he is, not to mention he could be pulling a Batman gambit here - he makes these edits to get unbanned so he can wreak more havoc. In general, second chances for banned users have failed because, even when unbanned, the problems that the user was banned for in the first place are still present. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As MuZemike points out, TC does not appear to want to be unbanned but rather wants to circumvent the ban. Unbanning them now would just reward such socking. I'm not opposed to applying the standard offer iff he can go 6 months without socking though. Regards So Why 14:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well a leopard can change its spots, but will need to stand scrutiny of a good scrubing. As long as the coverup paint shows not a chance. Agathoclea (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Ritzman makes this easy. That a banned editor continued to edit with sock puppets is unsurprising only if we assume that the editor had no interest in playing by the rules. The complaint itself demonstrates that this is still the case. causa sui (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books#Publishers cited by Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion, and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Proposal to require autoconfirmed status in order to create articles/Trial duration

Would an admin (or admins) close and summarize:

The first three discussions were listed at Template:Centralized discussion and have been archived to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive#August. The fourth discussion, also listed at Template:Centralized discussion, has run for over 30 days and can be closed. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Future timestamp to prevent archiving.~~ Cunard (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I've closed 1, 3, and 4. 2 never got off the ground, so I don't think it really requires a formal closing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your hard work! I agree with your comment that #2 does not need to be closed, so have stricken the future timestamp since you've closed the rest. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please block the Bibcode Bot

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RFC_on_the_bot-addition_of_identifier_links_to_citations causa sui (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Admins, please restore the block of the bibcode bot. This bot is cluttering literature references with redundant links. As Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) shows, it is strongly contested whether these links are welcome or not. As long as there is no consensus, an automatized tool should not be allowed to create facts. -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unblocked - but. The bot is operating within its approval and within its unblock conditions. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approval by a single admin, but no consensus. What you are doing is script-aided edit warring, Headbomb. What a tasteless user name, by the way. -- Marie Poise (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a specific instance of edit warring? Looking at random through the entire first page of Bibcode bot's contributions showed no edit warring. Syrthiss (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no edit war with the bot. Marie Poise is basically removing bibcode, links to OSTI, and other databases (basically everything that isn't a DOI) from articles. These links have been there for ages, although bibcode bot did introduce additional ones. I reverted (not the bot) Marie's edits because there is zero reason to remove those links. This concerns a bunch of articles related to Mössbauer spectroscopy. The bot doesn't edit war with people. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the bot is not warring, but Headbomb is: once an article's references are bloated by his bot, he doesn't tolerate others reverting. Examples have been given above: this edit, and this edit, and this edit, plus the more recent examples in the Mössbauer field. -- Marie Poise (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I point out that it takes at least two to edit war? Formal warning to both of you - quit it or be blocked. You've both been here long enough to know about WP:EW. That is also not an implied license for Ms. Poise to go to all the articles edited and revert the bot. Let the RFC play out. Syrthiss (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, please read WP:BOTACC policy. For the purposes of considering edit warring, the bot is merely an extension of your account. So if someone reverts your bot, and you then revert them back again without any discussion, you are edit warring. Although I actually agree with Headbomb's reverts today, this behaviour of enforcing one's own bot edits with reverts needs to stop.

The unblock and/or restart of the bot was premature while there is an ongoing RFC on the bot-addition of identifier links to citations, instigated by Headbomb. This is a bot that never had any community approval to begin with [by this I mean a discussion involving anyone other than the bot authors]. So what's the rush? As a gesture of goodwill, please suspend the bot till your RFC is concluded. Colin°^Talk 19:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In no universe would that RFC conclude that it's improper to add Bibcode to physics and astronomy articles, much like in no universe that RFC would conclude that is is improper to add PMIDs to medicine articles. The bot follows it's approved scope, it follows it's unblocking premise (i.e. physics & astronomy articles for now, until the RFC resolves), it doesn't revert war, it's edits are both correct and relevant. Bots and bot owners shouldn't be held hostage to the whims of one single disgruntled editor. Nor should WP:AN be the first place to go to during an edit war. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the RFC, at least ten people have expressed opposition to the bloating of references. Call it whims, but there is more than a single disgruntled editor requesting that your bot be stopped. -- Marie Poise (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. physics & astronomy articles for now, until the RFC resolves --- you are anticipating that the RFC will result in bibcode's being added at least to all physics & astronomy articles, possibly to more. And what if the result will be that bibcode remains restricted to astronomy? Will you clean up all physics articles where you added bibcode links? -- Marie Poise (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I solicited opinions from a vast array of people, including WP Physics, WP Solar System, WP Astronomy, WP Astronomical Objects, WP Space, etc.... Combine this with several thousand edits on Physics and Astronomy articles without anyone ever complaining about anything, and I would find it very hard to believe that the "physics" subset of the "physics & astronomy" community are opposed to seeing links to their most used database in their references. It would be as ridiculous as Medicine people deciding a ban the bot-addition of PMIDs on medicine articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You solicited opinions, but you got almost none. You cannot construe silence on a projekt talk page as support. Only now people start to realize what you are doing, so it is quite normal that only now people start expressing discontent. -- Marie Poise (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Poise is still reverting the Bibcode-bot (diff, diff, diff, &c.). Specifically, in this diff, the reference is to an article titled "On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton", typically an Astronomy subject. Moreover, Marie Poise is removing identifiers to all databases except DOI (diff (removing a PMID)).

Whether or not PMIDs, BibCodes should be added blindly or not is yet to be determined by the RfC, but this becomes destructive. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am reverting ... less than 1% of the mass edits done by Headbomb (aka bibcode bot). At the same time, I am materially improving articles. -- Marie Poise (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing BibCodes and PMIDs from places where they do matter (diff) is not improving an article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra, please let us make clear that you are writing here not as a neutral admin but as a party in the controversy. You have written screens full of arguments in favor of bibcodes. Fine, you have your opinion, I have mine. What I am asking for is just that Headbomb aka bibcode bot stop their mass edits as long as the discussion is ongoing. The PMID did not matter; it was inserted by I don't care which brainless bot into a physics article. -- Marie Poise (talk) 09:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Poise, I am just as neutral as you. And just to note, a) if you are so much against all these identifiers, you should not be singling out Bibcode bot (not even only bots), b) I also note you remove more than just identifiers, also accessdates and issue numbers (to name a couple). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, I am writing here as an editor, as I do in the other threads. Don't try to chill the discussion with such insinuations, please. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In physics, it is superfluous and unusual to use issue numbers in references. The fact that they can be found automatically by bots proves that they are redundant. Therefore, when cleaning up an article, I also remove issue numbers. The real problem is: once there is a template, some people think it is per se a good thing to fill out as many fields as possible. No! Readability! Brain! -- Marie Poise (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DOI's can also be found automatically by bots, what, if you have a DOI only most of the other information can be found automatically by a bot. Let's remove the authors, journal name, the title, what, everything except the DOI (where available). (I do agree about the issue numbers by the way, they are generally pretty superfluous, and also not commonly used in Chemistry, but I don't think there is consensus to remove them then, because, you know, this is not physics, this is Wikipedia). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody have a link to any documentation or previous discussion to agree that issue numbers are redundant? Rjwilmsi 16:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first time I hear such a thing. Sciencedirect always uses issue numbers in all citations, including physics papers (example). I concur in that a link is needed. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, titles, and similar are often omitted in journal citations because of space considerations. Which is why you'd see something like

Belinfante, FJ; ter Haar, D (1952). Science 116:555.

rather than the full

Belinfante, FJ; ter Haar, D (1952). "Hendrik Anthony Kramers: 1894–1952". Science 116 (3021): 555–556

In the case of Science, the issue number isn't particularly useful, mostly because they number their issue since the first issue ever published, rather than start at 1 with every new volume, which is what usually happens, and which usually makes the issue a useful thing to know. E.g. Physics Today, issue 3 = March issue of Physics Today (since it's a monthly journal). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC) 18:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibombing revisited

A couple of months ago an editor created an essay, Wikipedia:Wikibombing, to discuss the alleged use of search engine optimization techniques on Wikipedia to influence search engine rankings. I have carried out an experiment to see whether this is actually possible in practice and have posted the results at User:Prioryman/Use of SEO techniques on Wikipedia. I would appreciate any feedback from editors. Prioryman (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your conclusions fully agree with my own experience. It takes Google even much less than 15' to find a newly created article. -- Marie Poise (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(speaking from my experience a few years ago) (PR=PageRank) The PR of a certain page propagates to all pages that are linked from it. If the mainpage of your website is heavily linked and gets, for example, PR 4, then every subpage linked from the mainpage will have at least a PR of 3 regardless of haw many incoming links they have. Almost every single subpage that can be reached by normal navigation from the mainpage will have a baseline PR of 2 or 3, also regardless of the PR that they would obtain by counting the incoming links to that specific page. A page has to be very deep in the linking structure or be really empty to merit less than a PR 2.

The higher the PR of a page, the higher the chance that it gets crawled. Our mainpage has a very high PR (PR 8?) and "recent changes" is linked directly from it, so it must be getting at least PR 6, which is quite high. (It's also linked directly from almost every single page, which must help). If google notices that a certain page changes frequently, it will get crawled more frequently. Recent Changes is not disallowed in our robots.txt file, meaning that google is free to crawl it as frequently as it fancies. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been concerned in the past with the speed at which Google picks up new articles and changes - and indeed other sites that mirror Wikipedia. Maybe we shouldn't worry, maybe we can't do anything, but it does mean anything from BLP violations to blatant advertising gets picked up by Google. Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"maybe we can't do anything,": pending changes might be a partial solution for this, or other methods of vetting new pages before they go live. Fram (talk) 09:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Week-long WP:DRV and WP:MFD backlog

Done

Would admins close the following overdue DRV discussions:

Would admins also close ~~Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ONE PIECE CHARCTERS BIOGRAPHY LIST~~ and ~~Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Surturz/AdminWatch~~?

Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two done, struck from list. --RL0919 (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the MFDs (closed one, currently closing the other one). Regards So Why 09:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three more done, will do the rest in a couple of hours if no-one else does in the meantime. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck two more. Regards So Why 11:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and that's the last one. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RL0919 (talk · contribs), Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs), SoWhy (talk · contribs), and Black Kite (talk · contribs) for clearing the DRV and MfD backlogs. Cunard (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I want to redirect this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C6%B0u_Quang_Minh to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luu_Quang_Minh but I cannot edit that page, please edit it with this:

REDIRECT Luu Quang Minh

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Buuda (talk • contribs) 05:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'm guessing it's a title blacklist issue, but I'm too tired to figure out what. Courcelles 05:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it perhaps something to prevent the creation of titles with unusual diacritical marks, to retard Grawp-style title vandalism? Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "ư" is falling afoul of the "select Unicode Letter-like symbols" ban (the first entry on the blacklist). --Carnildo (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKoon personal page

See page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AtonX&diff=prev&oldid=213436875

Personal attack from CoolKoon

original text (the slovak text) Mozes sa podakovat picke Bubamare a "superslovak" Brontovi, ze odviedli spinavu pracu za teba. Skoda, ze su taki sprostucki, ze nevedia po anglicky. Potom by som im to povedal do oci. CoolKoon (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in english translation

You can say thanks pussy Bubamara and "superslovak" Bronto, that did the dirty work for you. They are so stupid they do not know English. CoolKoon (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

user Bubamara is admin on slovak wiki

http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redaktor:Bubamara

http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Špeciálne:ZoznamPoužívateľov/sysop --Jurkojanosik (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was over two years ago, why are you raking this up now? New user who is raiing complaints on the AN so fast is a little suspicious. Ged UK 13:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked his page.... your post was ....intersting to say the least:

Ahoj. Docital som sa ze si pre vlastnu rodinu v Budapesti len Cech. Hahaha. V 1945 sa mnohi Madari na Slovensku radsej prihlasili na Slovensku len aby nemuseli ist do Madarska. To je ta velka narodna hrdost? Urcite aj tvoji predkovia sa hlasili k Slovakom len aby ich Benes nevykopol ako smradlavych psov. A zmaz si nalepku ze vies po slovensky ako keby to bola tvoja rodna rec - ziadny Slovak nenapise "po Michaloviec" ako si to napisal ty na sme. Rec brechajucih psov ti ide lepsie. Fico a Slota sa po volbach dostanu znova do vlady z coho mas fobiu uz teraz, pises o fasisme Matice Slovenskej ale o fasizme Jobiiku nenapises ani slovo ty madarsky klamar. Tak si davaj pozor aby si nedostal po hube za madarcinu v Ba - sam pises ze sa na teba ludia oborili tak im to asi vadi. A ze by si chcel madarske napisy v Ba - kde je 3% madarov to uz vrchol. Papa debilko. Si len obycajny vojnovy stvac, fasista, privrzenec Orbana a Jobiku. --Jurkojanosik (talk)

Translation from Google reads

Hello. Docital I was of your own family for only guild in Budapest. Hahaha. In 1945 many Hungarians in the Slovak Slovak instead logged on only to avoid having to go to Hungary. That is the great national pride? Definitely behold thy fathers to be reported only to their Slovakom Benes nevykopol like smelly dogs. And delete the label of the Slovak VIES than if it was thy native language - no Slovak writes "after Michaloviec" as he wrote it on the We. Rec brechajucih dogs to better the terms. Fico and Slota, after the elections again to get government out of coho masses phobia already now, you write about fascism but about Matrix Slovak fasizme Jobiiku do you write a word of the Hungarian Klamar. So please be careful to get their noses in the Hungarian Ba - sam you write of people would be pressed hard on you so it probably bothers them. And that you would like Hungarian inscriptions in Ba - which is 3% Hungarians had a peak. Papa debilko. You only usually a warmonger, fascist sympathizer and Orban Jobiku. - Jurkojanosik

.... and that was on his page today. I saw a lot of messages in slovak with the same basic accusation "facist" / "nationalist", some by IP's, and one with your name ... Boomerang anyone ? @-Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons►Markab-@ 17:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest looking into whether "Jurkojanosik" is a sockpuppet or an SPA created for the sole purpos of making the above post. Hobartimus (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wow. I get a very short wikibreak and when I return all hell breaks loose. Does anyone have any doubts about the hopelessness of the Slovak nationalists? Well, if you still do, let me translate the whole text correctly for your convenience:

Hi. I've read somewhere that even for your own family in Budapest you're just a Czech. Hahaha. In 1945 a lot of Hungarians in Slovakia have rather registered themselves in Slovakia (?) just so that they won't have to move to Hungary. Is that the great national pride? I'm sure that your ancestors have proclaimed themselves to be Slovaks only to avoid being kicked out by Benes like some smelly dogs. And just delete the sticker which says that you speak Slovak on a near-native level - none of the Slovaks write "po Michaloviec" like you did at SME. You're better at the language of the barking dogs. Fico and Slota will regain their power once again after the elections, from which you obviously have a phobia already. You write about the fascism of Matica Slovenská, but you fail to mention the fascism of Jobbik you Hungarian (in this case rather: retarded - the word Hungarian became a synonym for a retarded/dummy person/doofus in Slovak) liar. So take care to avoid getting beaten up for (the usage of) Hungarian in BA (Bratislava) - you say yourself that people have lashed out on you, so obviously it (the usage of Hungarian in public) is annoying for them. And to top it off you want to have Hungarian signs in BA -where's about 3% of Hungarians-, that's just unacceptable. Bye, moron. You're just a regular warmonger (?!), fascist, supported of Orbán and Jobbik.

And have no doubts about it, over 50% of Slovakia identifies itself with such psychotic claims (supported by Fico's almost unanimous victory in all the polls). And to make the text even more "realistic" I've tried to translate it with the preservation of as much of the original content and context as possible, with some added explanations. -- CoolKoon (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames

I have started a RFC on a policy related to usernames at Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames and would request that interested users give their feedback. Regards So Why 15:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help with move

Hi! Could an administrator undo the moves I just made at Equitable Building (New York City 1870) and Equitable Life Building (New York City)? I'm an idiot and didn't read everything correctly, and now I can't undo the mistake. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done now, thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 405: / Line 405: @@
 <font color="#7026DF">@-[[User:KoshVorlon|Kosh]][[User talk:KoshVorlon|► Talk to the Vorlons]]►[[Special:Contributions/KoshVorlon|<span style="cursor:help;">Markab</span>]]-@</font> 17:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 :Suggest looking into whether "Jurkojanosik" is a sockpuppet or an SPA created for the sole purpos of  making the above post. [[User:Hobartimus|Hobartimus]] ([[User talk:Hobartimus|talk]]) 20:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
+Just wow. I get a very short wikibreak and when I return all hell breaks loose. Does anyone have any doubts about the hopelessness of the Slovak nationalists? Well, if you still do, let me translate the whole text correctly for your convenience:
+Hi. I've read somewhere that even for your own family in [[Budapest]] you're just a Czech. Hahaha. In 1945 a lot of Hungarians in Slovakia have rather registered themselves in Slovakia (?) just so that they won't have to move to Hungary. Is that the great national pride? I'm sure that your ancestors have proclaimed themselves to be Slovaks only to avoid being kicked out by [[Edvard Beneš|Benes]] like some smelly dogs. And just delete the sticker which says that you speak Slovak on a near-native level - none of the Slovaks write "po Michaloviec" like you did at [[SME (newspaper)|SME]]. You're better at the [[Hungarian language|language of the barking dogs]]. [[Robert Fico|Fico]] and [[Ján Slota|Slota]] will regain their power once again after the elections, from which you obviously have a phobia already. You write about the fascism of Matica Slovenská, but you fail to mention the fascism of Jobbik you ''Hungarian'' (in this case rather: ''retarded'' - the word Hungarian became a synonym for a retarded/dummy person/doofus in Slovak) liar. So take care to avoid getting beaten up for (the usage of) Hungarian in BA (Bratislava) - you say yourself that people have lashed out on you, so obviously it (the usage of Hungarian in public) is annoying for them. And to top it off you want to have Hungarian signs in BA -where's about 3% of Hungarians-, that's just unacceptable. Bye, moron. You're just a regular warmonger (?!), fascist, supported of [[Viktor Orbán|Orbán]] and [[Jobbik]].
+And have no doubts about it, over 50% of Slovakia identifies itself with such psychotic claims (supported by Fico's almost unanimous victory in all the polls). And to make the text even more "realistic" I've tried to translate it with the preservation of as much of the original content and context as possible, with some added explanations. -- [[User:CoolKoon|CoolKoon]] ([[User talk:CoolKoon|talk]]) 21:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 == Notification: [[Wikipedia talk:Username policy#RFC: Use of non-latin or unicode characters as usernames]] ==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards