Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

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. 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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

Other areas tracking old discussions

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 71 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

new closer needed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first. If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC) if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be. Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC) I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC) In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content. However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC) There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 49 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 48 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 48 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 45 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 35 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 32 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	10	22	32
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0	2	2
FfD	0	0	0	6	6
RfD	0	0	4	23	27
AfD	0	0	0	9	9

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 49 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 20 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 19 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 40 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

(Initiated 25 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 24 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 23 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

(Initiated 17 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Did you know.... there is spam in DYK on the main page?

I would have boldly removed the Gibralter-related spam link in today's DYK on the main page, but it is fully protected. Would some administrator take that down, please, so this ongoing scandal doesn't spread further? Carrite (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no spam there; it's only a neutral article about synagogues. I don't see anything in the citations that is being used improperly, and the "Map of Gibraltar with locations of the four synagogues indicated" is definitely not spam. Nyttend (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm puzzled too. What spam link? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Related to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gibraltarpedia and the concept of Gibraltarpedia. GiantSnowman 16:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What does the article on DYK have to do with Gibraltarpedia? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read Gibraltarpedia#Controversy. GiantSnowman 16:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh lovely. Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

So what's the deal? It's a legitimate article, it was nominated for DYK in the usual way, it was reviewed and promoted by editors in good standing and beyond any suspicion of a COI with respect to Gibraltar topics, so it now got onto DYK according to our normal procedures. If Gibraltar editors are spouting out a lot of new articles, they'll have a lot of DYK entries in the next months. They'll soon run out of new topics; it's such a small place. So, what's the issue? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with FP. Jheald (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm not really seeing the COI issue either. It may well have other problems - don't have the time to look at the sourcing right now - but DYK articles are not exactly selected based on their quality. T. Canens (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Furthermore, I can't believe that this was approved for the Main Page. What makes refs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 16 reliable sources? Furthermore, the whole article doesn't sound neutral, but that is only to be expected when sourcing to advocacy groups. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

← It's probably a good time to have a serious, centralized discussion about our standards on paid editing and conflicts of interest. Actually, the time for that was last December, but back then everyone was mostly focused on using the issue to get WillBeback perma-banned. I'm not saying that every single dispute on Wikipedia boils down to petty personality politics... but it's interesting to see some of the people who attacked Will suddenly manning the barricades against paid editing and COIs. It reminds me that one can never be too cynical about this place. Anyhow, whenever the serious discussion starts, please let me know. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Except that this instance does not concern paid editing. Nobody is being paid a penny to edit any articles in this topic area. Prioryman (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

These are volunteers, writing articles for free, some of whom are being taught how to edit by a paid consultant. There's no need to undermine their efforts. However, it is pertinent to note that they are being incentivised to do so, but this is a very, very different issue. People have run competitions many times before, though this is a very scaled up version of older models. DYK people have already decided this is ok. If the community doesn't feel so, there are better places than ANI to discuss this issue. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think Fut.Perf. and Prioryman are speaking sense. The article is new, well-written and was nominated following the usual procedures. Are we seriously going to penalise those who are dedicating so many hours of their lives to create articles about a certain topic/place? Surely these kinds of contributions are only in Wikipedia's best interests... So what if people are being encouraged to nominate articles for DYK? They're only being encouraged to create articles of a certain quality (i.e. will meet the DYK criteria) rather than having hundreds of poorly ref'd stubs. As for "paid editing" there has been no evidence of this. People need to chill out and concentrate on the facts(!) --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 20:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. I am a strictly volunteer contributor to Wikipedia, who just started writing and editing for Wikipedia and DYK this year. I am a physician and mom who does this in my spare time. What is a paid editor? And what is wrong with my article on synagogues in Gibraltar? I am a Catholic who lives in Chicago who thought it would be fun to learn a little something about Judaism in my research for this article. What is going on? I just received a notice a short while ago that something was up. Years ago, the Catholic Church did not treat Jews very well. We're long past that. Why does this seem to be a problem on Wikipedia? How can my article possibly be considered spam? Anne (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I will shout this to the rooftops if necessary: no one editing is being paid - The question is about where we AGF. Do we AGF of the editor, though they may have ulterior motives? (Without investigation the default answer is yes) Do we AGF of the person who assigned the points for the articles? (7 for DYK and then 8 for GA is a little skewif IMO) Without investigation the answer is yes. Do we AGF of the people (in this case the Gibraltan government) who put up the substantial reward for making so many articles? Well, that question is quite closely linked to the second but the default answer is still yes. It might be a good idea to discuss this further in a more appropriate environment. There's a few inconsistencies that make assuming good faith harder than it ought to be.

It's also about whether people particularly care about motives if the content is good. Community consensus seems to be the community doesn't. Can't deny we're getting a lot of new content out of it. Seriously though, not on ANI.

To ACP2011 - I think the articles you've been writing are of a wonderful quality and thank you for adding that information to Wikipedia. This issue is a lot bigger than you, though you are a part of it. GibraltarPedia is encouraging people like yourself (are you aware?) to write DYKs and other articles in order to win points to get a free trip to Gibraltar. This is causing quite a stir but it would be wonderful to hear your opinion. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know anything about a free trip to Gibraltar. I did get a notice about a T-shirt a couple of months ago for MonmouthpediA, but I haven't sent my address yet. I've always enjoyed competition; but since I was a kid, it's been more about competition with myself than anything else. I just assumed the "reward" was a "barnstar" or T-shirt. A month or two after I started contributing to Wikipedia earlier this year, it was recommended by some of the other editors that I start submitting articles to DYK and/or GA. I've only done DYK so far. I like it because it forces me to be fastidious about sourcing and it has also taught me to be more aware of close paraphrasing. I just read some of the comments above and clicked on the links. I had no idea that anything was going on with Victuallers (Roger). I have found him to be tremendously supportive and helpful as I've written articles for Wikipedia this year. Anne (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That really helps clear some things up. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If anyone's interested, the way the GibraltarpediA competition works is that you get 4 or 5 points for a new short article, and if your article appears on the DYK main page, you get an additional 2 or 3 points, for a total of 7 points. Anne (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What Gibraltarpedia really is and why DYK is important

Let me see if I can break this down so that people understand the problem here. What is the government of Gibraltar paying for? Advertising. Little plaques with QR codes are a very minor part of the equation. The real value (i.e. monetary value) in this project is the free publicity generated by the project. All of those feel-good "World's first Wikipedia city" stories. This is why Roger Bamkin states that "QRpedia and Monmouthpedia which have delivered > £2m paybeack on £50K investment". The payback he refers to was the value of the free, international media coverage. As a result of all of that press coverage, Monmouth fully expects to get actual return on its investment through increased tourism. This is the model that is being followed with Gibraltarpedia. DYKs on the front page of one of the world's most-visited sites are worth money because they get people thinking about Gibraltar. And people who think about Gibraltar might visit those attractions they are reading about. And people who visit spend money. This is the substance of Gibraltarpedia, not QR codes and plaques. The people who are volunteering their time to do the grunt work are doing so with the best of intentions, but in some ways they are also unwitting dupes. Is it necessary that all of Wikipedia be co-opted to advance the tourism goals of Gibraltar as well? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a suggestion if Wikipedia decides to do further competitions. Consider competition about a theme that doesn't benefit a particular person, country, or other entity. Perhaps biographies, monuments, etc. Also, the reward should be nominal. There have to be other people like me who just enjoy the fun of competition. Anne (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have competitions. See Wikipedia:WikiCup. This one was not instigated within Wikipedia, but outside of it. I agree there are a number of issues worth discussing, but AN is not the right venue for in-depth discussion. (Arguably, it is useful to let admins know this is going on, but that purpose is completed.) There are threads on Jimbo's page, which is a natural place for such a discussion to start, and then maybe some RfC's are needed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If there is to be a discussion of the DYK issue here, people should at least understand that this is not simple "paid editing". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If someone does start an organized discussion, this would be a good place to announce the location, and it would be helpful to include relevant facts there, but this isn't the right place to hash it out. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not hashing, I'm explaining. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understand this correctly:

• We want articles on notable stuff in and around Gibraltar.
• They want articles on notable stuff in and around Gibraltar.

Where's the conflict of interest here? We all want the same things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

What is it that Victuallers Ltd. wants? Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A good question. The easiest way to find out would be to see Victualles Ltd. contracts and financial arrangements with the government of Gibraltar (or any other entity that's contracted with a government to edit Wikipedia). Absent that we're left with lots of uncomfortable speculation.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The conflict is that this is reported as a project for "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia which the Ministry for Tourism has embarked upon" [1][2], and Wikipedia wants to be seen as a neutral educational site; or as Slate put it, Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it’s no longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It’s just another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products. If the “Did You Know?” page was suddenly dominated by trivia about Gap or Mars Bars, many readers would quickly smell a rat, but there are numerous PR professionals who represent subtler brands and causes. JN466 03:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• What if I offer to donate one million dollars for polio eradication if somebody writes a good article about my company. Is that a good or bad thing? I think that any arrangements for rewards or compensation should be disclosed transparently for the community of editors to discuss and approve or object. The problem with the Gibraltar DYKs is that money changed hands without disclosure, and our DYKs became unbalanced, to say the least. Jehochman ^Talk 03:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
  • By the way, editing for rewards, such as free travel to Gibraltar, as offered here, does constitute paid editing. That, however, isn't the problem here. The problem here is that members or former members of WMUK were using their association with WMUK for a profit-making enteprise, with WMUK's approval. WMUK is a charity and can't be involved in such activities. Also, the DYK regulars have decided that they do not agree with the use of DYK to support a commercial venture in this way. It is their right to make that decision. The editors not associated with WMUK who are editing Gibraltar-related articles in the hope of winning a prize are not, in my opinion, doing anything wrong, even if the prize was cash. They should be aware, however, that their efforts are potentially being used and manipulated to make money for other people. Cla68 (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The main discussion is on Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know under Potential abuse of DYK, and other threads. The issue is that a trustee of the UK chapter is a paid consultant setting up these projects on behalf of tourist agencies. He's incentivised the volunteers to get the maximum coverage - ie the front page and DYK. There's another issue in that Victuallers has financial relationships with several leading figures in the UK chapter, some of which have been defending him wherever this debate appears. Secretlondon (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• There's an assertion in the heading of this section that DYK is important, but the post underneath the heading just ignores that claim. I've never understood why DYK is important and I've felt for a while that it should be eliminated, because of abuse like this. If DC is claiming DYK is important, some evidence would be useful. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Never mind paid editing, what about our independence and the NPOV?

I'm sure this GibraltarPedia project is being done with the best of intentions, but I think it is extremely dangerous to Wikipedia and, if it is too late to stop this one, there should certainly be no more projects like this. The danger is exactly the same as the danger of accepting advertising: the perception, by our associate (the "client") and by the world at large, that our content will be slanted favourably to the client. From the Gibraltar Chronicle's story "A New Way to Market the Rock":

"As Wikipedia is written by volunteers, concern was expressed that those who did not have Gibraltar’s best interest at heart may write untrue or negative articles, Professor Finlayson said; “The people from Wikipedia UK have guaranteed to us that this has an element of self-regulation and we want to encourage many local volunteers to keep an eye on what is going on, and if things go on that is nasty, then it is very easy for them to go back to the earlier page in seconds."

The Gibraltar Tourist Board is evidently expecting, not just more coverage but favourable coverage, and the ability to suppress anything unfavourable. Bang goes Wikipedia's independence and the neutral point of view. Even if, in practice, Gibraltar articles are not "taken over" by the GibraltarPedia project, bang goes the outside world's perception of our independence and neutrality. If we allow this sort of thing, we might just as well take ads. JohnCD (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• We shouldn't have negative or untrue articles. We should have neutral and true articles. I would assure anyone that if articles are negative and/or untrue that's it's very easy to go back to an earlier version, because that's what should be done. If someone's pushing favourable coverage, then blocks can be handed out, articles locked down, whatever. If someone's pushing fair coverage - well, good for them. Barnstars can be handed out, backs can be slapped, whatever. WilyD 09:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's not as simple as that. What is fair and neutral is a matter of judgement, and not everyone may agree with the Gibraltar Tourist Board's view. That's why we have WP:COI rules. Would we "guarantee" to the representatives of a commercial company that they can revert anything they think "nasty"? Wikipedia should not have this sort of relationship with any subject of our articles. JohnCD (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• It is as simple as that. The COI guideline says what I'm saying. And yes, I think we can "guarantee that Wikipedia has an element of self-regulation" - it does. Everyone can (and many people do) edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. Or at the behest of someone who does. What matters is whether or not they're doing so in an appropriate way. And we already have lots of remedies if they're not. What you're looking for simply isn't there. WilyD 10:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't like this whole situation, but I can't say precisely why. It just leaves me feeling off. Maybe it's the idea of a certain topic getting undue weight in DYK - I noticed it with Monmouth when that was happening but had no idea there was an actual effort to promote it. Maybe it's somebody (potentially) abusing their position at Wikimedia for financial gain. Maybe it's people viewing Wikipedia as free advertising advertising. GiantSnowman 10:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• The trustee in question as apparently stepped down. WilyD 11:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Could we please just start an RFC already? I would do it myself but I can't figure out how to work the system. There are so many discussions about this in different places, covering different issues. Getting every issue in the same place just seems like the logical thing to do. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 11:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• @WilyD: you say " What you're looking for simply isn't there." What I'm seeing, which certainly is there, is a project for "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia." Wikipedia is absolutely not for marketing anything. JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• What you're asserting that says it also doesn't say. We don't host ads, but we can't help that articles do provide exposure for tourism (indeed, the location of my first date with my wife was chosen from the Wikipedia article, which was a perfectly suitable article). If someone's writing ads - we can delete the ads, block them, whatever. (If you know of any, I can do either of those, and am perfectly happy to). If people are writing good articles, because they want exposure - well, good articles are good artices, and that's all there is. We can't (nor should we) police intent. Only practice. WilyD 11:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's a delicate balance. We want to partner with organisations, locations, etc. to help improve related content (it being the main aim, after all). But at the same time advertising can take many forms; if a tourism board is offering a real life prize for the most related content added to the wiki, which includes extra points for promotion on the main page, that is verging on the line. As you say; any article could be an advert for something, and so long as it's neutral (note; above you suggest it should be neutral rather than negative - that's fallacious as we record negative things in a neutral way perfectly well. There is nothing wrong with negative info); that isn't an issue. The problem comes from other forms of promotion; if a neutral article is created and promoted to the main page that is normally not an issue - if lots of articles are created & promoted to the main page, on related subjects, with a prize being offered by the subject... that is an issue unresolved. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not "asserting" it says that, it does say it, it's a direct quote. It also says it is "effectively marketing but done at the lowest possible cost." Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• You're asserting that it's in contradiction to what WP:SOAP says, and it's not. Neutral, encyclopaedic articles can nonetheless promote a tourist destination. Cancun makes it seem like a nice vacation spot - because it is. Doesn't mean we should delete Cancun (we should not). WilyD 13:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is overly simplistic to equate marketing with promotion and NPOV violations. Some large corporations that are proud of their history have a dedicated historian or librarian that is part of marketing. Many "neutral" articles can be quite promotional, if the company has a positive reputation in reliable sources. Whether it's for the media, Twitter or a product data-sheet, marketing is just a matter of providing content the reader wants.

So long as we openly allow PR to directly edit, PR will follow our nature to push the envelope and "use" Wikipedia for advertising/promotion. When we establish a permission-based approach (ie WP:BRIGHTLINE), then we establish a means to simply accept content that serves the reader and decline contributions that do not, leaving all final content decisions in the hands of an impartial editor. For every controversy like this, there's also a dozen companies with serious problems on their articles, but they're too afraid to do anything about it, because of the controversy.

I am a marketing professional and a frequent COI contributor. Corporate Minion 16:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• What about Gibraltar's competitors for tourism dollars, for example other municipalities who are interested in doing what Gibraltar did? They are now faced with the perception that they either have to kick up big bucks to Roger Bamkin or be left out in the cold.
• Are there no volunteers willing or able to to this work? Is Victuallers Ltd. displacing willing volunteers? Will we now see more and more Wikipedia insiders and those with connections trading volunteer work for paid consulting, while making money of the back of unsuspecting volunteers?

--KlickitatGlacier (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comments further down indicate Wikipedians will write featured articles for a sandwich. Frankly, I'd do it for a hardroll filled with ketchup. Plenty of people make money off our work, through clones and mirrors, or printing it off as a book and selling it, or whatever else. Such is our fate. WilyD 16:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

If their work suddenly becomes directed by paid consultants, capitalizing on their insider connections, that might change. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Taking (clearly identified) ads is less bad than taking advertorials. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, but we don't even take ads, and one important reason is the fear that our editorial integrity would be compromised, or perceived to be compromised, by a wish to please the advertisers, or not to offend them. That same fear is the reason for concern about a project presented as a joint venture between Wikipedia, or at least Wikimedia UK, and an organization whose stated intent is "marketing Gibraltar as a tourist product through Wikipedia". JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Cultural partnerships"

Isn't this sort of thing just marketing under another name? "A Backstage Pass tour is an event aimed at sharing the expertise of real-world cultural institutions with our wiki-expertise. Principally this involves an organisation or interest group hosting a private tour for the benefit of local Wikimedians and in reciprocation we help improve the content on Wikipedia that is relevant to that organisation and its collection." The thing includes a free lunch. The reason an "organisation or interest group" participates in such a scheme is pure self-interest, and the prospect of free exposure in Wikipedia. It's a view of Wikipedia as a marketing instrument. Once that view takes hold, Wikipedia's credibility (such as it is) is lost forever. JN466 12:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That's defensible if what is being marketed is a cultural institution of that kind; but it's the start of a slippery slope, and when the "partner" or "client" is a tourist board we are definitely too far down the slope. JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've said this elsewhere but I'll repeat for the benefit of those who haven't read it yet. When Clive Finlayson commented on the removal of anything "nasty" in reply to a question from the press, he was referring to vandalism, which of course will be reverted, but somehow this has been construed to meaning the sanitation of articles of anything that may show Gibraltar in a bad light... Somebody over at Talk:Gibraltarpedia was asking why there was nothing on crime rates in Gibraltar for example, well that's because no one has got round to it yet but look, it's on the to-do list and I hope that someone writes about that soon as it's just as notable. We do however, already have an article that reports on how a man died following an explosion next to the cruise terminal and another reports on the government's controversial decision to demolish a site of historical importance to make way for affordable housing... This is hardly "favourable coverage" [sic] of Gibraltar now is it? But that's what happened and that's how Wikipedia shows it, as is. As for DYK, in no way has Gibraltar been getting "undue weight in DYK" [sic]. If a Gibraltar-related article has appeared on the main page it's because it's new/expanded and has met the DYK criteria after following the usual nomination process. There's a good number of quality articles been written by some very dedicated and hard working contributors so there'll be a good number of DYK noms. Blame the DYK rules not the editors who are dedicating so many hours to Wikipedia's cause with their fantastic contributions! --Gibmetal 77^{talk 2 me} 12:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

{EC} I don't think the two are comparable. I can't figure out exactly why, but one seems like promotion of a place, and the other of culturally significant works of art. Being incentivised by a free lunch and access to things which would be significant even outside the auspices of the institutions which hold them, is very different to focussing on a specific location with an incentive so large as a free trip. Also, Backstage Pass events rarely offer rewards, although if they do, it's usually a book token or some other trivial prize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panyd (talk • contribs) 12:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I mediated a content dispute on Gibraltar once, where Spanish and British views clashed, and it was quite as contentious as Northern Ireland. To be honest, that was the first thing I remembered when I read that statement. As for the frequency of Gibraltar hooks on the main page, the media clearly do not see it this way. They feel we are plugging Gibraltar, as El País put it. And from what I have read over the past few days here, we have someone paid to recruit volunteers to write articles that can be linked to via QR codes, the production of which he also provides consultancy for. JN466 12:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear: It is one thing if someone from an institution like that creates an article, editing with a COI. This is a situation we know; while it causes problems, these are usually pretty obvious problems. But what is Wikimedia UK doing promoting this sort of thing, and getting Wikipedians to accept a free lunch in return for editing services? There is something off here.

I'd like to quote the Slate piece again:

Once Wikipedia becomes a pay-to-play platform in any sense, it’s no longer a balanced, universal wellspring of information. It’s just another commercial website, with a particularly insidious brand of camouflaged advertising. Any company with a sly enough PR person could promote ostensibly fascinating facts about its products. If the “Did You Know?” page was suddenly dominated by trivia about Gap or Mars Bars, many readers would quickly smell a rat, but there are numerous PR professionals who represent subtler brands and causes.

Wikipedia goes down this road at its peril. JN466 12:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibmetal77, one article every 2 days incentivised by a points system with the ultimate reward of a free trip is clearly undue weight. The contributors don't appear to be doing anything maliciously, or at least don't see anything wrong with this, and that's a good thing, we should definitely AGF of them; and yes, we're getting a lot of good content. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be explaining the issue to the editors, especially the newer ones. It saddens me to see so many people sacrificing what I believe are core principles for the sake of articles. I am sure these editors would happily volunteer to write for the sake of it, that's what we all do here, because we love the project. The issue isn't them, it's the whole affair and it's relationship to a tourism board. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That's it in a nutshell. --JN466 12:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It is over two years since I raised the GLAM program on the conflicts of interest noticeboard. The response we received then is worth rereading now. My experience as a participant in several of these events is that articles such as the Hoxne Hoard and Tipu's Tiger have benefited from the involvement of museum curators (declaration - I've had free lunches in the British museum canteen, and there are some train fares that I'm entitled to claim from the UK chapter). The important thing is to keep the focus on the collection and not the institution, and to make sure that the dialogue is with the museum curators not the marketing department. Wikipedia benefits from involving experts in this way. Where I suspect that the GLAM program needs a reminder is only to offer non-trivial intangible, academic or trivial prizes, and to be strict about keeping the focus on the collection and access to the experts and not to drift into promoting the institution. We shouldn't be having a problem about this, at least in London the limiting factor is Wikipedians who want to get involved in GLAM activities, not museums who are prepared to work with us. But I would dispute Jayen466's point "The reason an "organisation or interest group" participates in such a scheme is pure self-interest, and the prospect of free exposure in Wikipedia". My experience of the curators that I've met is that they take very seriously their professional duty to make their collection available to the world. Of course we need to steer clear of the museum marketing departments, but the professional aims of the best curators are fully compatible with ours. ϢereSpielChequers 13:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Writing articles about the content parallels the complaint here. If I know a museum has a lot of good artifacts, I'm more likely to want to go there (British Museums are generally free, but I usually donate a couple quid). By having neutral, well written articles on the collection, you're still promoting the Museum. The question is whether that intrinsic promotion is a bad thing. I'll suggest it's not, and since it's unavoidable anyways, it's not worth losing sleep over. But clearly not everyone agrees. WilyD 13:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the links to those old discussions (I also read the one about the Hoxne hoard on Iridescent's talk page, and rather liked Iridescent's argumentation). FWIW, I agree with much of what you said then, and are saying now; and the distinction between the collection and the institution, and curators and marketing departments, is key. Question though: what do you mean when you say the GLAM programme should only offer non-trivial prizes? JN466 16:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for striking that; it makes more sense now. I agree that prizes should be symbolic rather than monetary. The key problem is that Wikimedia UK, or some people within WMUK, have been marketing Wikipedia as a marketing tool, as per the presentation posted on Jimbo's talk. Hence the articles that appeared in the Gibraltarian press, about a new way to market the Rock, and marketing Gibraltar as a tourism product through Wikipedia, etc. It's not wise to do that: not to governments, not to museums. JN466 17:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm not wild about paid consultancy gigs for Wikipedians or anything like that and have found some of the issues raised recently quite concerning. But let me explain how the GLAM thing has worked for me. Recently, I went to the British Library on a Monday afternoon (what can I say, working from home has some flexibility). In return for a cup of coffee (I don't drink coffee) and a tour around an exhibition I would probably have gone to view anyway, I created three minor stubs: National Reports Collection, Luis López Domínguez and Eric Millar. A scholar on illuminated manuscripts, an Argentine political writer and an institutional collection of corporate reports. I'm now obviously a soiled whore, a paid lackey of Big Libraries; no better than an industry-funded lobbyist. Next I'll be telling you that smoking doesn't really cause cancer. People working with GLAM institutions are trying to find a way to actually improve Wikipedia: increase the quality and depth of content, fight against systemic bias and generally "make the Internet suck less". That we've reached a state where we're getting very close to conflating the odd free sandwich or train fare subsidy given to good faith community members by non-profit or state-owned cultural institutions with letting the doors open for marketing men to take over the 'pedia shows that our community is completely unprepared to have reasonable and sane conversations about what actually counts as COI.

Certainly with a body like the British Library or the Smithsonian or the National Archives, there's a pretty admirable overlap in our missions. We need to make sure we don't jump into ill-advised collaborations, but I don't see any particular reason why chapters or individuals shouldn't be working with cultural institutions in a mutually beneficial way to support the kind of grand mission we're all supposed to be here for: sharing knowledge. When Wikipedia doesn't work with traditional sources of knowledge, we're just a bunch of unreliable, often anonymous Randy in Boise types; when we do, we suddenly morph into evil paid lackeys of... museums? Sorry – not buying it. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there is certainly nothing wrong with that, and suggesting the editors and institutions involved might be purely self-serving is unfair. The content improvements are great to see. What would be worth doing is exploring a "best practices" guide for editors and institutions entering into this sort of situation; things to do (or not), sensible aims and so on. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:GLAM getting started. Zzzzzzz! Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I went to some of Backstage Pass tours of museums in New York and DC. I do not recall any free lunches but I confess that I sample their free chocolate and I grab some free National Archive tattoos for my kids. Those extravagant gifts did not sway my decisions of scanning few dozen NARA prints and adding them to articles like Daniel N. Morgan, etc. I also have to confess of helping with the upload of 18 thousand images donated by Walters Art Museum. I did not receive my lunch yet, but a secret cabal with surely sinister "cultural partnerships" agenda added the images to 1632 articles on few dozens wikipedias. I apologize for my inexcusable behavior, and hope that it will not cause "Wikipedia's credibility (such as it is)" to be "lost forever". --Jarekt (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

@Errant. If you think there should be a best practices guide for GLAM then you might want to check out the "Best Practices" tab at GLAM on the Outreach wiki. Last time I looked it wasn't too far from the COI advice we got in 2010 that I referenced earlier in this thread. But if you have any concerns, that would be the place to raise them. ϢereSpielChequers 13:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow are we getting off-topic. This entire section is rather off-topic. Also, could we please all remain civil? Getting your hackles raised up (everyone, me included) is not really promoting open dialogue. Which would be nice. Even if the open dialogue consists of: "I think you're wrong, this is a good thing. Please let me know why you think otherwise. Like here, only in a more appropriate setting if multiple people want to discuss the issue. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't be daft, Tom. No one is suggesting you are a whore and a lackey for writing those stubs. That's good stuff. JN466 16:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but you seem to be saying that if someone wants to get "points" for writing Crime in Gibraltar, Corruption in Gibraltar, Racism in Gibraltar, or other "promotional" subjects about Gibraltar—or maybe expanding articles about the many historically important buildings, battles, or people—then they would be just lackeys of the state, because Gibraltar officially supports the idea of people writing whatever they want about the city in Wikipedia, which makes us a thoroughly compromised advertising venue.

I think the Slate writer is being deliberately provocative (saying that the sky's going to fall sells well) and that you're over-reacting. If we could get a hundred cities to inspire new editors with as little cost to us as them sending out a few T-shirts or a meal, then we should do it ASAP. The only restrictions that we need to worry about are making sure that they're not deliberately and overtly pushing a POV. If they accept "Ethnic strife in ____" on the same terms that they accept "Environmental protection in ____", then that's really all we need to worry about.

Do you know what's missing from this long discussion? Any actual diffs of someone whitewashing an article. I assume that this absence means that it's not happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I notice that all the three in your top line are redlinks, and I doubt if any of GibraltarPedia's new recruits will be hurrying to write them or to nominate them for DYK. You can get bias (of the WP:UNDUE kind) without whitewashing, e.g. by setting up a joint project with a marketing organization like a tourist board to recruit new contributors specifically to write about tourist attractions. It's a fuzzy area: if the tourist board did that off their own bat it would be hard to object, though there would be COI concerns. It's when it is presented as a joint venture with Wikipedia that it becomes worrying - the outside world doesn't distinguish between Wikipedia, the WMF, and WMF-UK. "Here's a way to do cheap marketing: pay some money in the right place and Wikipedia will come and help boost your tourism!" is the unfortunate message that seems to be getting out. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

If the tourist board did all this themselves, we'd have people pitching a fit over at WP:COIN because the tourist board's employees are getting paid to promote the city.

We don't require a neutral encyclopedia. We require individual, separate articles to be neutral. You can write all the articles you want on either "positive" or "negative topics, so long as those individual articles themselves are NPOV.

I agree that it is undesirable for anyone to believe that this is an official English-Wikipedia-sponsored project, but I've got no problem with it being an official City-of-Gibraltar-sponsored project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree with JohnCD. This is not about whitewashing articles, but about providing exposure. I am sure you are familiar with the concept of product placement. Brands pay money just to have their brand shown on the screen, or to have their name in the news. This is what we are doing for Gibraltar. Hell, just because you demanded diffs of whitewashing – which is not actually what the substance of the complaint is about, but which would make things even worse – I've been looking at the Gibraltar DYKs this morning, found a statement that was not in the cited source, did an hour's research, and now know that there are interesting Neanderthal caves in Gibraltar, and that Neanderthals lasted longer in Gibraltar than any other known place in the world ... it's working. :) There are probably just as interesting archaeological and palaeontological digs, or other features of interest, 100 miles up or down the Spanish coast, but the Gibraltarian ones are the ones I now know about. And an image caption in the article has a helpful link to Gibraltarpedia. It's all about exposure. JN466 12:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with editors getting free nick-nacks in exchange for creating or improving articles, what I have a problem with are the efforts to flood DKY and to promote themselves ahead of others.\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.205.142 (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think most Wikipedians eat lunch every day, and very few reveal who paid for it. As long as it is allowed to edit anonymously, we can't blame those who are honest enough to declare openly that they are paid editors. The only result would be to drive them into anonymity.

If an article cites a book or a museum as a reference, that is a promotion of it as a source for more information, which is a good thing. It helps the curious to find the information they are looking for.

It is also important that we have good articles about books, journals, news media, and cultural institutions, so readers can evaluate the cited references. --LA2 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Museums are about sharing knowledge, so is wikipedia. It makes sense that we collaborate, and if one or the other buys someone a sandwich, I can live with that; it is self evidently not a conflict of interest if you are writing about some of the subjects of the museum. It's a completely separate issue from paid editing. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The average PR agency budget is about $7-$20k a month. The PR professional on the corporate side is paid an annual salary of $60-$100k a year. When their boss or client has a Wikipedia problem they want fixed, this can lead to an entire corporate bureaucracy leaning down on someone to figure out a solution to the negative content on their page. I think when we start talking about COI from a free lunch or chocolate, we've missed the boat when you put things in perspective. Am I wrong? Corporate Minion 01:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK has always been a spam fest. Some do it because they like obscure flora or fauna. Others do it to promote reams of nationalist books. (Yes, WP:BK is lame enough that one can have an article on almost any book.) It's now done to promote tourist attractions in a certain country. The only thing unusual about this event was the timing. Funny exchange:[3]

“

• Anonymous Coward (1): Wikipedia is a very noble idea that is polluted polluted by the commercial interests of a few.
• Anonymous Coward (2): and by the propaganda interests of many.
• Anonymous Coward (3): And some people are just shocked - shocked! to find this out....

”

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just found this amusing DYK from Jan 2011 "... that Saudi Arabian officials detained a vulture (example pictured) and accused it of spying for Israel?" No spam there. Extremely neutral and aiming to improve the sump of all human knowledge. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for a pre-approval process for joint projects like this

See WP:VPR#Pre-approval of collaborations. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Why two projects

Why do we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Gibraltar and Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA? It makes a page like Talk:Flat Bastion Road look rather bizarre, and it seems pointless to have two projects for the exact same group of articles. Fram (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe one is for editors who know how to monetize their edits and the other one is for the dummies who contribute freely? The better question is: why are so many pages on Wikipedia advertising a domain name not owned by WMF but by a for-profit consultancy [4]? There is intellectual property and monetary value in domain names, you know... Tijfo098 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibmetal77, one of the driving forces behind Gibraltarpedia, was recently adding DYKs to the wikiproject page, so they were certainly aware of its existence. According to this edit by Victuallers, Wikiproject Gibraltar is included in the scope of Gibraltarpedia. This seems similar to the use of separate Monmouthpedia pages rather than using the existing Wales wikiproject. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

But the scope of Monmouthpedia and the Wales Wikiproject are not exactly the same. There is no difference in scope in this case though. Fram (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's completely incorrect. Have you read Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA? It clearly states, "The area of interest includes the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, the Strait of Gibraltar, the Spanish municipalities along the coast of the Bay of Gibraltar, the northernmost coast of Morocco and Ceuta." That is far wider than WikiProject Gibraltar, with which I've been involved for a long time. Gibraltarpedia incorporates content from at least three different WikiProjects (Gibraltar, Morocco and Spain). Prioryman (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, given the recent negative press coverage, any Gibraltarpedia templates on talk pages should be replaced by the more standard Wikiproject Gibraltar template (or removed if there is already a Wikiproject Gibraltar template present)? I am bothered by the large external URL on the template and I am sure that I am not alone in that feeling. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I would support this. Fram (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted a prominent notice at WikiPoject Gibraltar that was obviously intended to funnel the contributors to the "right" WikiProject [5]. I've also taken the spammy template to TfD. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely no need to do that. The two are not the same. And it's not an external URL, it's merely a redirect to Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA. It's deeply misleading to describe it as "an external URL" since it's not going to any external destination. Prioryman (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, your revert and edit summary seems awfully close to exerting page ownership. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects are one a the few types of Wikipedia pages that are effectively WP:OWNED by their participants, so don't necessarily object to that. But I object to the indiscriminate spamming of article talk pages. Look at Talk:Cylindrophyllum comptonii. According to the article, that grows in South Africa. But then someone decided that GibraltarpediA.org somehow covers the whole planet and they can spam any article with their branding and advertisement campaign. That is not okay with me. Tijfo098 (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody owns any page, period. Prioryman explicitly explained his revert through edit summary that it's made because Tijfo098 is not a project participant, then Prioryman is reinforcing the fact that project participants own the page. Since this is an open project which anyone can join or leave at any time, it's even more bizarre that Prioryman could exhibit such a clear approach to exert claims that an non-project participant cannot edit the page. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiProjects are groups of people, not pages or subject areas. It's pretty much nonsensical for one group of people to say that the other group of people is "within their scope". It is perfectly acceptable for all the articles that are within Group #1's scope to also be within Group #2's scope (e.g., all of the articles supported by the folks at WikiProject Alaska could also be supported by the folks at WikiProject United States), but the groups of people themselves (the WikiProjects) shouldn't be within anyone's scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:GLAM/GibraltarpediA has now been started. The input of previously uninvolved editors could help to get a detached and more objective viewpoint here, but everyone is of course welcome to give their opinion. Fram (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

What to do with an obvious sockpuppet but unknown puppetmaster?

I've come across a very obvious sockpuppet which I believe is very likely to be that of a banned user; however, I don't know which specific banned user it is. What is the best way to proceed? Prioryman (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

do nothing. you can't just throw accusations around. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd send it to SPI. Sure, you don't know the puppetmaster, but the clerks can sort it out once the checkusers act. Not commenting on the merits of the sockpuppet theory here as no evidence has been presented. --Rschen7754 08:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

CUs will tell you that CUs aren't for fishing expeditions. Volunteer Marek  08:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about who I think you're talking about, then yeah, it's a really obvious sockpuppet. And if it's a sockpuppet of who I think it is, all the links are gonna be stale even if you had actual provable suspicions it was them. Though I would say have a CU make sure they're not running through a proxy. Because that would be an immediate reason to ban them, sockpuppet or not. Might get lucky. Silverseren^C 08:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. If the IP geolocates to California, this would be entirely consistent with previous locations. Ankh.Morpork 11:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, what exactly has this devious scoundrel done to earn your ire? --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

And here's the sockpuppet himself - I invite others to review his contibutions (KlickitatGlacier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) which show that he is clearly (1) not a new user and (2) clearly involved with Wikipediocracy (note in particular this edit here at the start of the Gibraltarpedia controversy). I believe this is likely to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Vigilant. KlickitatGlacier has not at any point denied that he is a sockpuppet, though I've challenged him repeatedly. Prioryman (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it's an undisclosed clean start? Cla68 (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I note that this Vigilant sockpuppet also demonstrated involvement with Wikipediocracy. Ankh.Morpork 11:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Such accusations belong at WP:SPI, not here. —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff  11:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, I'm not User:Vigilant. You're clearly on a fishing expedition. You want me banned because I'm asking inconvenient questions about the yet another WMUK embarrassment. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, "(1) not a new user and (2) clearly involved with Wikipediocracy" is probably a not a small set of editors (only because Wikipediocracy gets thrown around so often around here, I don't have an account there to check myself). You don't say why you think he "is likely to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Vigilant" in particular. You'll have to disclose this information at WP:SPI and/or show that KlickitatGlacier is disruptive. The latter would probably allow a block regardless of whether sockpuppetry can be proved. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Policy and long-standing precedent explicitly forbid the use of alternate accounts in projectspace. This is obviously an alternate account. Can someone explain why this account should be permitted to contribute to project-level discussions in violation of policy? MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • How can we tell the difference between an "alternative account" and a "clean start" account (mentioned above)? And the project space policy is not absolute "Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections." The only potential violation I found is [6], which indeed might give a hint that he could be trolling. (But note that Newyorkbrad was being sarcastic too!) Other than that he edited the GLAM wikiproject and WP:AN (duh), neither of which is even discouraged from doing with an alt account. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • "Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas or disputes, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny" (emphasis mine).

      So bottom line, if KlickitatGlacier continues editing projectspace, they likely will be blocked by myself or others. NW (Talk) 18:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, NW, what good does blocking me do? --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you insinuating that you'll just create a new account or were you just referring to your edit history? Silverseren^C 20:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

After looking at his GLAM edits more closely, it appears KlickitatGlacier went [7] there to stir trouble. I would support topic banning him from anything WMF-UK related anywhere on Wikipedia. By the way, based on his edits before this controversy, KlickitatGlacier has a bit of expertise in rocket engines. Does that ring a bell to those familiar with various banned editors? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. He wasn't site-banned but was topic-banned. He left in a huff surrounding community sanctions in late August 2010 as "Retired". He received a specific AN sanction that forbids him from using any undisclosed accounts after he exhausted the community's patience. Diff with sanctions ==> User:Wolfkeeper.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• When he last visited ANI, this editor attempted to have Indeffed an English user on the basis of his Obvious-Sock-Is-Obvious observations about a poster in a Wikipediocracy thread. It was subsequently demonstrated through circumstantial evidence that the guy he wanted banned off was a Joe Job that used American English. No apology from the purge instigator, User:Prioryman. Now he's back with more Obvious-Sock-Is-Obvious dramamongering. Time to topic-ban this partisan from ANI. Carrite (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfkeeper re-opened. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Also, if it's a sockpuppet of Wolfkeeper/Rememberway, then it is not only violating the community restriction but plainly evading and indef block because Rememberway was unblocked after a discussion and then reblocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. [8] Tijfo098 (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Holy cow! First I'm Vigilant, then I go backpacking to two days and now I'm Wolfkeeper? Jeeze people, get a grip. I'm not Wolfkeeper, nor Vigilant, and this is a fishing expedition. All I did was ask some questions about WMUK. Apparently they were 'uncomfortable' questions, and now Prioryman wants me banned. He should be ashamed of himself. With all these news stories coming out around the world maybe some of you honest admins might want to ask a few questions too. --KlickitatGlacier (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Every time you comment, you sound more and more like the sock of someone. There is absolutely no doubt that you're someone's sock and not a new user. Silverseren^C 00:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indef. NW (Talk) 00:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

KlickitatGlacier, we hardly knew ye. You lived your wikilife like a falling star, blazing a bright path across the Wikipedia firmament, then suddenly extinguished, leaving us all in darkness. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It's his own fault for revisiting old disputes. At least Prioryman has followed the rules and engaged in a seemingly endless series of all-new disputes... Franamax (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So the moral of this story is that its ok to be a douchebag as long as one is a douchebag in an entirely new direction, unrelated to any and all prior douchebaggery. We need to write down all these unwritten rules. Tarc (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

And add "douche bag" to the growing list of incivilities that one can get away with using because they aren't, apparently, uncivil enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Tarc, all editors are equal. Some are just more equal than others. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Four legs good, two legs not so bad? Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, now it's written down. :-) Baseball complained at AIV that someone called him a douchebag in an edit summary. Two admins (I and one other before me) said that wasn't vandalism - not that there's no remedy for it, just essentially that it didn't belong at AIV. Fortunately for BB, a third admin said they'd block the editor if they did it again (the editor had been warned after the comment). BB said we'd be hearing from him if the editor made another personal attack. So, perhaps someone should enhance the current essay and address all these salient points. If you do, make sure you sort out whether it's "douchebag" or "douche bag". In our article, we spell it as two words, but in the essay it's spelled as one (heh).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

fix article history

Could someone fix the article history of Miju language? The histories of the article and a redirect have been merged, so that moves appear to be blanking, etc. For example, these deletions[9][10] never happened, nor did these restorations.[11][12] The problem is (Deletion log) 23:49 restored page Miju language ‎(5 revisions restored).

Thanks — kwami (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm starting on it. Please, nobody else do anything until I leave a note saying that I'm finished or that I'm stuck and need help. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I'm done. The article itself is at Miju language, and the history of the redirect is at Talk:Miju language/old history. Please look it over to see that I did what I should have; a consultation of the deletion log for Miju language will show you why I'm not confident that I did the right thing. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing another history merge. I've started a discussion on whether attribution in the redirect's history is required at WT:Copying within Wikipedia#Creativity of page names. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have another request for a undoing a histmerge: Three-Lobed Burning Eye. The two articles are about one form of H. P. Lovecraft's Nyarlathotep and a magazine named after it. The monster article was AfD'd and redirected to the magazine. The history merge created nonsensical diffs (e.g., 1, 2) between revisions from the separate pages. I asked the admin to separate the monster revisions to Three-Lobed Burning Eye (monster), but he has not done so.

• 46 revisions total, 30 revisions related to disambiguation page and monster
• 26 revisions for disambiguation page and monster. The earlier revisions are a disambiguation page containing sections on the monster and the magazine, but they are all primarily about the monster.
• 13 for magazine
• 7 interleaved revisions, 4 monster (2,000 bytes and 48-byte redirect) and 3 magazine (>3,000 bytes)
  • 2 magazine: Jclemens merged a sentence, and I added attribution with a dummy edit. 48 revisions total. This diff should cover any later edits. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's how a histmerge actually works, Flatscan. I have yet to see you articulate any policy-based reason for undoing the histmerge, else I would have done it myself. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I linked to WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and WP:Merge and delete#History fixing in the body and edit summary of my opening comment to you. A troublesome case explains why overlapping histories should not be histmerged. A more complex case describes two topics in one history. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Why was that history-merged in the first place? The content of the pages is totally different, which means a histmerge only breaks the article history. The correct way to handle this would have been to move the redirect to a disambiguated title (say, Three-Lobed Burning Eye (creature)), to make way for the move of the magazine article to Three-Lobed Burning Eye. That would have left the histories of both pages intact while allowing the magazine article to have an undisambiguated title. Jafeluv (talk) 06:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the content was merged into one article, and there was no foreseeable need to maintain separate articles, per the AfD discussion. I merged everything relevant into one article, rather than maintaining separate redirects for content which would be merged into that article, and chose histmerge to maintain author attribution. Nothing in the history is "broken", just interleaved. Jclemens (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Umm, I don't think we're supposed to merge histories of unrelated pages when doing text merges. The procedure is to note the merge in edit summaries and to apply {{R from merge}} to the remaining redirect as a notification that it shouldn't be deleted. There are also talk page templates {{merged-to}} and {{merged-from}} to indicate where the history can be found. History-merging unrelated pages makes the article history difficult to follow (you can't compare successive versions to see what changes have been made) and it's tedious to undo since you have to go revision by revision and figure out which page that revision is from. (Some of this is explained at WP:HISTMERGE#Parallel versions.) It's good that you're making sure author attribution is preserved, but in this case I think it should not have been done by history-merging the pages. Jafeluv (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

For anyone unfamiliar, {{Copied}} is the preferred template, but it is more complex. User:Asfuller was the primary contributor to both articles, and the magazine article looked completely rewritten. There was no attribution dependency until Jclemens merged a sentence after my request here. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Johnmylove

Please keep an eye on this user's contributions: User:Johnmylove He is recently trying to delete 10.800+ bytes of sourced information from the Religion in Russia article. He seems to have a history of edit-wars and conflicts with other users.--79.31.85.135 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious history of edit wars (certainly no blocks). It appears that Johnmylove restored the article back to September 23, after a great many edits by different IP addresses (a couple of exceptions, edits by registered accounts), all of which geolocate to Bergamo, Italy, including the OP. Beyond that, it's all content-related, and I have no idea as to whether Johnmylove's restore is justifiable.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I should add, in all fairness to the OP, that a review of Johnmylove's talk page does show a problematic history, including warnings of edit-warring, breaches of BLP, uploading non-free images, and creating articles that were speedily deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at it too and saw what you did Bbb23 with one exception. It looks like Johmylove took out the Bergamo IP(s) edits. To my eyes it looks like the IPs added a batch of info only some of which is sourced. Both the IP and J labelled each others edits as vandalism which does not seem to be the case. Perhaps the aid of someone who is acquainted with the subject could take a look at all of the additions and decide whether they help the article or not. Hopefully this will be of some help to those who look at this, but it may not be an admin matter at this point. MarnetteD | Talk 20:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

These apparent content disputes where editors toss around the word vandalism are always more difficult to assess when one (like me) doesn't know enough about the subject matter to know whether it's purely a content dispute or the editing is actually disruptive. It doesn't look to me like administrative intervention is required at this point but may be needed if the battle continues. J hasn't edited the article since the IP restored all the material, nor has he edited anything else, so he may be off-wiki, which might explain why he hasn't commented here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have thoroughly noticed that article is being corrupted by a particular person using different Ip addresses who neither understands the Russian language and neither he is related to the russian ethnicity, since he is interested in Russia History, the person has created different Ids on Wikipedia including the one with the name User:Anandks007, and have edited the article without any reliable source. The source seems to be photo edited out of something and is being credited as proof to claim the information. I need to inform that there is pure corruption and destruction of the article by User:79.31.85.135 and his other duplicate addresses User:95.237.79.222, User:82.58.166.196, User:82.58.166.196 etc. Hence I kindly request you to look into the matter and take necessary action against this unregistered IP addresses that have been continously changing the accuracy of this article for their own personal interests and according to their own objectives. I have noticed similar actions being displayed by this notorius editor on other Russian related pages. --Johnmylove (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The article was normal till September 23, and since then different IP addresses has been editing the article on the same topic and I found it suspicious and have restored it back to its original script as it was. --Johnmylove (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Your claims are delirious. I am not User:Anandks007 or the others who have modified the page while I was updating it to the 2012 figures, and the administrators can verify. I am quite well skilled in Russian culture and religion. The sources used are a 2012 sociological survey published by Russian press, and the only reliable one to date (previous estimates were based on religious websites or membership estimates of the churches). You seem to be a Christian fundamentalist trying to enforce your personal agenda in Wikipedia, as you did in the Anders Behring Breivik controversy and other times. --95.252.40.244 (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

PS: my IP address is dynamic, so it doesn't depend on me if it changes. --95.252.40.244 (talk) 23:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• John, if you believe there is sockpuppetry going on, you should file a report at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well I seem User:95.252.40.244 is hindu fundamentalist who is necessary involving his hindu agenda, so stop giving your foolish edits, I am not going to consider your edit. Whatsoever there is no information regarding whether the cropped photo is published by russian press and hence unless the official date exists, I shall not allow this article to be disrupted by certain elements such as this. The page looks vulgar filled with unnecessary information being forced to viewed by the general public and the information looks to be hoax. I doubt that even after blocking the Ip addreses, the person's Ip addresses seems to be dynamic, as he notoriously claims would not stop him from making more deliberate attempt to continue his agenda. --Johnmylove (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I am not user Anandks and it will be verified, and I am not a "Hindu fundamentalist" since I'm not Indian. The page is not "vulgar" or filled with unnecessary informations. The survey is discussed in these press articles used in the text: Olga Filina (Ogonek Magazine). Mapping Russia's Religious Landscape. Russia and India Report. Retrieved 24-09-2012. and Верю — не верю. "Ogonek", № 34 (5243), 27/08/2012. Retrieved 24-09-2012. Please stop reverting valid contributions made by other users just because you don't like them. --188.10.92.249 (talk) 09:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, it seems that you have used a "sockpuppet" IP 119.82.120.221 to bypass the 3RR rule.--188.10.92.249 (talk) 09:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• The edit-warring content dispute continues, so I have locked the article for 3 days. John filed an SPI report but has failed to produce any evidence of sockpuppetry. I also note that John has not discussed the dispute on the article's talk page. I repeat here what I just said on the article talk page: you must discuss the content dispute and seek dispute resolution if you cannot resolve it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Upadting Non-free license templates

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_16#Template:Has-NFUR

I've updated some templates, but the major ones are protected, needing administrator intervention,

An example of the proposed change is posted here : Template_talk:Non-free_biog-pic amongst others.

The change is straightforward to do, and shouldn't take that long to do :)

Thanks in advance. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

In relation to this on a different template: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ANon-free_video_cover&diff=514856299&oldid=500974795

TeeTylerToe unblock request

• TeeTylerToe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user's request remains unanswered for quite a time, which is understandable - in such situation an unblock should be made per consensus, so no admin is comfortable about reviewing singlehandedly. Therefore I'm starting a discussion here. Note: I have no opinion regarding this unblock request myself. Max Semenik (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I was the blocking admin here, and this appeal slipped through my radar (though Foxj (talk · contribs) did consult me about re-enabling talk page access so that the editor could ask to be unblocked). Thanks very much to Max for following up on this. I think that we need assurances from the editor that they'll edit productively, and have posted some questions on their talk page in regards to this; his or her editing prior to the block was highly disruptive. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• I've looked at this a couple of times, but I didn't feel up to tackling it. I have to say I see a very tendentious approach to editing there, and I'm not entirely convinced that there's a solid commitment to respecting consensus and to following a much more collegial approach. It's good to see an agreement to stop the personal attacks, and good to see an agreement to follow procedures better in the previous unblock request - but it does concern me that in each case it took so long and so much hammering by others to get that far. And edit-warring so fiercely at DRN, of all places, showed staggeringly bad judgment - can we be confident that a lack of such judgment can and has been improved? OK, that's my fears, but I think I could cautiously support an unblock with a 1RR restriction, and an understanding that any repeat of the same behavior will lead straight back to a fresh block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC) (Withdrawn - see below) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, but I think that a commitment to stay away from the Sikorsky S-76 article is also needed given that this was the crux of the problems. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think we should require a voluntary topic ban from that article too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Require a voluntary topic ban? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, that he agrees not to edit it - whatever you call it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Agreement under pressure isn't real agreement; we can impose a topic ban, of course, but we mustn't call it voluntary. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
            • Yep, sorry, I really just meant "by agreement" - as opposed to a community !vote topic ban -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• I've actually been fairly impressed by the patience TTT has shown lately. He's been waiting for someone to handle his unblock requests (on UTRS and on-wiki) for an annoyingly long time, but he's managed to not fly off the handle about it (I've spoken to him/seen him spoken to about it on IRC about it a few times, and while it's clear he's frustrated, he's always asked about it very politely, etc). That strikes me as a good sign that he's perhaps turned a corner as far as impulsivity. If TTT is willing to commit to some stricter behavioral guidelines (perhaps 1RR, as Boing suggests, or a topic ban?), I'm ok with giving him another chance here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC) Based on the replies TTT has offered to this thread, it appears I was wrong about his progressing away from the issues that caused the block.Oppose unblock at this time. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

TTT has asked that an editor cross-post the following message from his or her talk page. I'll comment at the end of it: Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"I have to say I see a very tendentious approach to editing there, and I'm not entirely convinced that there's a solid commitment to respecting consensus and to following a much more collegial approach. It's good to see an agreement to stop the personal attacks, and good to see an agreement to follow procedures better in the previous unblock request - but it does concern me that in each case it took so long and so much hammering by others to get that far. And edit-warring so fiercely at DRN, of all places, showed staggeringly bad judgment - can we be confident that a lack of such judgment can and has been improved? OK, that's my fears, but I think I could cautiously support an unblock with a 1RR restriction, and an understanding that any repeat of the same behavior will lead straight back to a fresh block." Boing! said Zebedee

The tendentious editing page describes tendentious editing as biased or a non NPOV. A reliable source stated that the S-76 shares the simplified transmission of the S-70. I argued that as this was supported by consensus and there is no source that I know of, or that has since been brought to light that contradicts this. How was that not neutral?

As for the consensus, see above. There seem to be many misapprehensions about wikipedia policy on consensus. It's not a show of hands the way many people believe. Many people involved in this dispute believed that there was one right side, and one wrong side, and that was probably the driving force behind the unbelievable OR that was used to try to justify the removal of properly referenced edits. That is not what consensus on wikipedia is.

Let's say there were properly referenced dissent to the statement that the S-76 shares the simplified transmission of the S-70. A proper consensus would be to present both ideas, and provide the appropriate references for each.

As for the collegial approach, I was routinely threatened, and at one point I was told that if I wanted to have an opinion I should create a subreddit on reddit where I could be the mod and ban anyone I wanted indefinitely that disagreed with me. I admit I responded to that editor in kind and told them they were condescending. Other than that I was fairly collegial, and I would ask that you provide references to this behavior you call non-collegial.

The entire unblock system is rather backwards. It first requires a mea culpa before you have a chance to plead your innocence. While that basically gives admins carte blanch, it puts people who have been blocked at an obvious disadvantage.

"it took so long and so much hammering by others". I offered the restrictions on my behavior on july 30. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.

Also could you tell me exactly how I was "fierce" in my edits to the DRN? I've been told that Guy Macon has acknowledged that he was involved in the dispute (has anyone told Nick-D?). He unilaterally closed the dispute on the DRN that he was involved in before it had been opened or been commented on by any neutral third party. I restored the dispute to the DRN, which was then reverted by Steven Zhang. I discussed it collegially with Steven Zhang, and Steven Zhang made noises about how an RFC might work, and that there are other avenues of dispute resolution then quickly closed the discussion without any definitive response. Seeing no harm in a new dispute being listed on the DRN I again restored it when Guy Macon started his reverts without any discussion or participation.

What did I do that was fierce?

What did I do that was so unique in it's poor judgement? Did I revert repeatedly without discussion?TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm interpreting this as a rejection of the notion of avoiding the S-76 helicopter article, and tends to imply that if unblocked TTT would continue this dispute. I note that the crux of the issue was that he or she didn't provide sources to support the material they wanted to add to the article, despite requests that they do so. TTT has also resumed their attacks on Guy in the final paragraph - they seem to not be able to acce[t that the closure of the DRN thread was an entirely routine and sensible act. As such, I strongly oppose unblocking this editor at present as it appears that they would quickly resume their disruptive behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Well, what I now see (based on his own post) is a lack of understanding that his behaviour was inappropriate, as would be required by WP:GAB. Sorry - no thanks. Not that I want you to beg for forgiveness, but at least understand that your behaviour cannot recur. Let's see WP:OFFER - including positive editing on another project, minimum 6 months of great, non-problematic editing, then a return with a parole dangerouspanda 22:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• After that reply, continuing the content dispute that started all this, and again not dropping the DRN thing, I have to withdraw my support for unblock at this time - I'd suggest some time away, as per WP:OFFER -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

TTT has also asked that the following be posted here. Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

And you responded. What personal attacks did I make against Guy Macon and where? The topic was discussed at great length over weeks. Can you point out any point where the question was that I couldn't source the statement that the S-76 shares the simplified transmission of the S-70? I remember people saying that the 20,000 RPM turbines were reduced to 200RPM in a single transmission stage, that people brought up statements that the S-76 employs a planetary transmission, which didn't contradict the original statement, and several other opinions were aired against the referenced statement, but where was the question raised that I did not support my statement? It was really quite an involved, long, drawn out dispute, so I'm sure it played a massive massive role but I can't find it looking back now.

What makes you think I would edit disruptively?

Again, please someone post this in the discussion.TeeTylerToe (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Responding to dangerouspanda, I understand that editors can't insult one another, and that I shouldn't have reverted on the DRN. I don't see what citing GAB has to do with anything. What did I say that makes you think that I would repeat the things that I was blocked for?TeeTylerToe (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, and all the possible arguments you could be making but didn't because I suppose you didn't feel the need to, it occurred to me that you could think that I really was editing tendentiously, that's why I was blocked for edit warring for a week in july, and that that's why... well, that's one of the arguments you decided not to make. I suppose you didn't make the argument that I was subject to a one week block in july because I reverted edits restoring a new dispute to the drn about an article where you didn't make the argument that I could be seen to have been repeating the same argument without convincing people.

There are times when no argument you can make will convince other people. Did I consider that my argument could be flawed? Yes. Did I blindly refute other parties that contradicted my edits? No. At each point when another editor brought OR to the table trying to debunk the claim made by the reference I didn't ignore their dissent. That's why I know that modern technology does not have a practical single stage transmission that reduces a 3,000shp 20,000 RPM input to a 200RPM output, and why I know that early sikorsky transmissions had two planetary stages. The simpler transmission of the S-70 probably reduced the number of planetary stages from 2 to 1. I made an honest effort to make the best argument that I could, but neither side would compromise which is why I was pursuing the dispute resolution process.

Is the threat you feel but didn't voice that I could pursue dispute resolution through probably RFC as DRN seems to have given up?TeeTylerToe (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Based on the above, oppose an unblock. Still a lot of confrontational tendencies. Max Semenik (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree with Max and in opposing any unblock of TTT until he owns up to his own wrongdoing and apologise to the community for it with a further assurance from TTT that this sort of unacceptable behaviour will not happen again in future. Also, TTT's way of small talk got me uneasy all over again, are Giant pandas really being deemed as dangerous or endangered? Which is which? And seeing that he has not dropped the same battleground mentality that had gotten him to where he is in the very first place, I just wish to state that I have no confidence whatsoever even if a 1RR was imposed, some people are just not capable (or is it a competency issue?) of handling such restrictions. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 03:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

TTT has also asked that the following message be posted here: Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The 1 week block that expired august 4th was not for disruptive editing on the s-76 page. It was for restoring a dispute on the DRN. Many of the people opposing my unblock request seem to be doing it both because I feel that there are still problems with the S-76 article.

First, last I checked the article about a month ago, I had two problems with it. One, is that the use of the term "engineering technologies" is unencyclopedic weasel wording. Second, it doesn't reflect the content of the references referenced in the article.

Now. It's my understanding that IF someone had a problem with my editing on that article it would be that I was either editing the article in a disruptive way, or that I was proceeding in the dispute resolution process in a disruptive way.

My intention is to constructively pursue the dispute resolution process. What problem is there with that? On July 30 I volunteered reasonable restrictions that would prevent my past errors.

What concerns do people have about me pursuing the dispute resolution process on the S-76 article? Are you concerned that I would make personal attacks? Are you concerned that I would edit war? Are you concerned that I would be otherwise disruptive? What is the concern?

What I don't understand is that people seem to have a problem that my opinion about the fact hasn't changed because so far nobody has made a compelling argument to bring that fact into question, but people seem to be bothered that I still hold that opinion. I suppose the concern is that I still intend to advocate that opinion on wikipedia, but really, what problem do you have with me saying that I would submit the article for RFC? How is that disruptive?TeeTylerToe (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

TTT has asked for another extended comment to be posted here. To avoid this thread becoming too long, I will link to it instead: User talk:TeeTylerToe#Further request to post comments to WP:AN thread. JohnCD (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Having read through the whole saga, oppose unblock and suggest WP:STANDARD OFFER. JohnCD (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be consensus to not unblock. Can someone please decline the request on TTT's talk page? Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD backlog

There is quite a backlog at WP:AFD at the moment, which needs a few admins to go through and close them. I've gone through most of them that need to be closed today, and might get a few more done, but there's still quite a lot there to be done. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Just knocked down a good chunk of them, but I gotta go and there are still about twenty five items at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I've got a bit more spare time now; I'll see if I can get through a few more. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Now down to one item, which I can't close because I am the nominator. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Polandball bounces back - what to do?

Polandball was an article about a nationalist cartoon meme created by a currently banned user with a history of problematic editing in nationalist areas. It was deleted in April following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polandball. It reappeared on my watchlist today. User:Babelia created a new Polnadball article, which was cut and pasted from Know Your Meme. I tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, but the tag was removed within 5 minutes by User:Rave with the edit summary of "rewritten". Except it wasn't rewritten at all, it was replaced by the text that User:Russavia has copied onto nearly every language Wikipedia (eg here) in an effort to spread this meme. I would prefer not to start another AfD which will give people a platform to spout their nationalist views - can someone deal with this in a more expedient manner? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Solved easily enough with a G4 tag, for a recreation of a deleted article. If this user chooses to edit-war over that, then I hope a block comes swiftly. Tarc (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't just removed tag. The article was really rewritten with new text, so G2-tag was unnecesarry. --Rave (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The G4 deletion was correct, but to clarify for Rave: You replaced one copyright violation with another; you can't take someone else's text and add it as your own without attribution. That was a copyright violation too. Since I can't imagine this article being recreated in a way that wouldn't still violate Sandstein's deletion rationale, I'm going to salt it. Any admin is welcome to unsalt if they think this is out of line, without my prior OK or comment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Mass nominations of Church articles for deletion

Lieutenant Ramathorn (talk · contribs) has been massively nominating church articles for deletion via PROD. They are all contentious and I am planning on undoing them. I am starting this discussion to see if standard rollback would be appropriate here based on the statement that rollback is appropriate "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page". In a similar manner, to save time and energy, could an administrator use mass rollback. Can an administrator also check his deleted contribs and see if he PRODed any before today that were deleted because I plan to request undeletion of those articles. Forgive me if this shouldn't be at WP:AN, I felt it was more appropriate than ANI because I am requesting administrator action; however, am requesting no action to be taken against the user in question. Ryan Vesey 21:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the list of 81 articles he nominated for deletion so far. Ryan Vesey 21:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Massive deletion campaigns are never a good sign. Seriously, to anyone that has been around Wikipedia longer than a year or two: has similar behavior ever gone well? The answer is no, it never has. It always makes the nominator look bad, even if they don't have ill intentions, it smells funny to anyone who has seen this go on so many times before. This is always a bad idea. For the record, as you are rolling him back, nothing has been deleted. I checked. You can safely roll back all of his PRODs. And I would still advise him of this discussion, he needs to be involved, if for no other reason than to hear why this is a bad idea. --Jayron32 22:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Looks like Floquenbeam and I have reverted most of them, though at least one PROD was contested already by a third party. - jc37 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• (e/c) All PROD's removed by jc37 and me (and maybe others, his is the only other name I saw right away. I'll let you do the explaining on his talkpage part. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to the lot of you, I'll leave a note. I only caught it because an NRHP article was nominated. Ryan Vesey 22:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

• (ec)As is often the problem with mass nominations, there are several distinct classifications you could put the nominated articles into. First there are the articles that are both sourced and talk about the history of a pretty old church, it seems unlikely that they will ever get a delete consensus. Then there are pure stubs, that provide no substantive information, other then locations and an infobox that describes the church its a part of, those articles might conceivably be deleted on a lack of notability grounds, though I expect a decent argument could be made that churches are almost certainly notable by nature. Finally you have really problematic articles that are borderline G11, and we may actually want to delete. But as its a mass nomination, non of the nuance is explained and its unlikely anything will get deleted as a result. Monty₈₄₅ 22:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Well see, that's the problem. Perhaps some of these really needed to be deleted. But they won't be, because the mass nomination shows that no care was taken, since some obviously good articles were prodded along with the crap. So now we have to undo them all, because we can't trust anything done by this user. It's why this is always a bad idea. Work in small batches, check your work, and be darned sure it is all on the up-and-up. Failure to take proper precaution leads to exactly as you note: we don't end up deleting anything (even if a few deserve it) because of the spurious nature in which they were all nominated. --Jayron32 22:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• In case anybody wants to add the church articles to their watchlist, I have a list of them that you can paste into your raw watchlist. Ryan Vesey 22:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• This is a fairly new user, this year, 122 edits (most of them are those bad PRODs), and he has never used the talk page for an article, wikipedia space or any user talk page. That alone is often problematic, but it forces us to assume a little good faith as he probably didn't understand how disruptive that is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
• They are all churches not of any note. None are historically significant architecturally and they are just places that are a dime a dozen. If it wasn't landmarked it didn't go on the list. I saw one then noticed there are a rash of these things. Churches aren't more notable than a dry cleaner or candy store unless the building is landmarked. Churches are businesses and many seem to think they can get away with advertising their business because they are a church. Some of these were pure ads. Some of these didn't establish any noteworthyness. Just because they are a church doesn't mean they are noteworthy. --Lieutenant Ramathorn (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• Some of the churches you tagged may not be notable. For example, I just nominated Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church for deletion; however, many of them were. Some of them were even listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Ryan Vesey 02:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• [edit conflict with Ryan] I have to disagree with the mass reversions. I agree that this mass tagging was a problem — but why a mass revert? Many of these articles are clearly without any evidence of notability; for example, see Brethren Reformed Church and Ardmore Presbyterian Church, and see what I did at Church of the Annunciation, Cincinnati. This isn't a situation with many hundreds of bad edits, where you have to do a mass rollback due to the sheer number of problems; you can easily go through just 81 edits one-by-one. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at Brethren Reformed Church. The church was founded in May 2007, the article appeared in June 2007. Most of the article is doctrinal stuff about the denomination and very little is specific to that particular church. Just like the dry cleaners (to continue with that analogy) across the street who could gas on and on about how clean they will get your trousers. Neither of teses (opinion) belongs in wikipedia, at least the dry cleaners didn't try. I am against mass pretty much anything but one-by-one a lot of these should go. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Whoops. Is this spot just for Admins?

No: everyone should feel free to comment in good faith. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The safest thing to do when a suspect mass deletion has been attempted is to return to the status quo ante and start from scratch. That ay each article can be dealt with individually and not as part of a pack. It's quite easy to do as Lt. Ramathorn apparently did, and page through a bunch of articles saying "Not a landmark, therefore delete", "Not a landmark, therefore delete"..., but there are other criteria to be considered other than landmark status and architectural significance, such as historical importance and a church's place in ther community. Besides, not all important churches have been landmarked, nor have all architecturallyt significant churches. My understanding is that there's no particular hurry to "finish" the encyclopedia, so there's nothing lost in taking the time to deal with each article on its own. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

"Place in the community" is a veeery, very relative thing. I'm sure that for the members of any congregation, no matter the size, the church holds a place of great significance in the community. Whether or not it is notable, however, is a different thing.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This is why we don't use our opinions, and instead rely on the reliable sources. If the church is listed as a historical building, or has received significant coverage in paper, or has some other documented reason to set it apart from the average church, then we assume it is notable enough for inclusion. If we aren't sure, we err on the conservative side since it already exists and work a little harder to find sources, or just tag it with a notability tag and allow a little time to pass, and for others to help out. We don't have to clear them all out in a day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to point put that mass-reverting the PRODs shows the same lack of care as mass-adding them in the first place. Some of them may be perfect candidates for PROD as obviously non-notable run-of-the-mill churches, but now they will have to go through AFD to be deleted. Sort of a "two wrongs don't make a right" scenario if you ask me. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

They'll only get deleted if no one about today gives a damn about them, but one could summon up notability around here for a duckpond and a kiddies slide. John lilburne (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I disagree. The reverting wasn't another "wrong". The amount of time it would take to figure out which weren't PROD candidates would be a waste of resources. In addition, I feel that a majority of those that could be deleted should go through AFD anyways. Ryan Vesey 20:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Blanket reverting is only permissible in cases of ban or block evasion. another user's carelessness is not a license to be just as careless yourself. You say you believe a majority of them should go through AFD, but since it is clear nobody really evaluated the nominations that position holds no water, and now they have to go through AFD since PRODS can't be re-added even if they are removed for no reason at all. So instead of "wasting your time" being thoughtful in your reversions, you waste everybody else's with a pile of AFDs, some of which are not necessary because of the obvious non-notability of the churches. Your own reply has convinced me further that my assessment was accurate. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Not true at all. As I commented earlier, revert can be used for reverting widespread edits by a misguided editor. That's what this was. In addition, I am asserting that all of the deletion nominations were controversial and therefore should go through AFD. Ryan Vesey 20:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Jc37, but my mass reversion was based on the inappropriate use of PROD; anyone should feel free to rePROD any of the articles I dePRODed if they've actually looked at the article and feel a PROD is appropriate, and not worry too much about the "can't rePROD an article" rule. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Template_talk:Non-free_Crown_copyright#Request_to_reword_template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 to start on 1 October

Just to let everyone know that the (perennial) RfC for the 2012 ArbCom Elections is planned to start on 1 October, lasting for 30 days. While many things have already been decided in the past, other issues still need to be discussed and consensus re-established, while there are also a couple of other new issues that came up from last year's election that need to be addressed to ensure a smooth and fair election.

The RfC will be at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012 (yes, as of this posting, it is a redlink, but it will shortly not be). Regards, --MuZemike 19:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

By a vote of 9-0, the Arbitration Committee has passed the following motion:

Remedy 1.1 of the Sathya Sai Baba 2 arbitration case is suspended for three months. During this period, Andries may edit within this topic area, provided that he carefully abides by all applicable policies. After three months, Andries may request that the topic-ban remedy be vacated permanently.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 21:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Is this now considered acceptable from an administrator?

This discussion has degenerated into vitriol and uselessness; no further admin action is going to be taken. Bring it to Arbcom or step outside and get a breath of fresh air. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

From an email I recently received from an administrator, who may or may not choose to identify himself: "You know what, fuck you. You're a petulant, narcissistic piece of shit."

Surely the time has come when administrators ought at least to be held to the same standards of behaviour as those they police so aggressively? How many other editors are receiving similarly abusive emails from administrators I wonder? Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That should be a blockable offense. Ryan Vesey 21:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as one who was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic", it would be hard to disagree. But this is an administrator we're discussing here, different rules apply. Malleus Fatuorum 21:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, was this just a single message? Or part of a larger back-and-forth conversation? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't consider that. My comment above was based on the assumption that the email was either out of the blue or was a single message stemming from an on-wiki discussion. I also assumed that the quoted text was the entire content of the message. The "blockable" aspect might change depending on the additional information. Ryan Vesey 21:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The quoted text was indeed the entire content of the message. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There was no "back-and-forth conversation", and it wasn't a single message. Malleus Fatuorum 21:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, what was the context of the message, then? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer your question after you tell me why that matters. Malleus Fatuorum 21:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't matter what you said to him, then it doesn't matter what he said to you. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In my experience, a construction involving "you know what?" is generally used when a party in a disagreement has become extremely frustrated and at the end of their rope. I am curious as to what would have prompted such an outburst. And given your well-known antagonism to those of the sysop persuasion, I think context is even more important. The remark taken alone is certainly unacceptable, but the conduct of both parties in a disagreement can and should come under examination. One remark out of its relevant context obfuscates the full story. Bretonbanquet sums it up nicely. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Since you ask this question on this page, with this level of detail, I assume you're looking for opinions rather than action. That's obviously not acceptable, regardless of the circumstances, but those circumstances matter tremendously in whether this is a case of (a) Admin X needs to chill out, (b) Admin X needs to take a wikibreak, (c) Admin X needs to be aware that if they do it again they'll probably be desysopped, (d) Admin X needs to resign the tools or they'll have them taken away, or (e) Admin X is desysopped now and blocked. It's impossible to know which of those responses is appropriate without knowing more than you can divulge on-wiki. If I'm wrong and you actually want some action, you should forward the entire email chain to ArbCom. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  I see. So it's now considered perfectly acceptable for administrators to send abusive emails to non-administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 22:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be a spectacularly wrong way to read my comment. If you're in the mood to argue, find someone else. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Am I correct in assuming you notified them via email of this thread? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

  Why would I notify Mark of this thread? I never mentioned him. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Also what Floq said. I know Mal and ArbCom have a very loving relationship and all, but this is up their alley. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Wikipedia e-mail should be abolished. It's a place for 'team editing' co-ordination. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Fwiw, I'm the one who sent Malleus that e-mail. He had called me "fucking pissy" a few days before, and I was offended and lost my temper. Regardless of what he has said or done, my comments were grossly uncalled for, and I'm ashamed of myself for making them. I did not live up to the standard that I have always tried to hold others to, and I deeply regret that. If the community believes that I should be sanctioned for this, I will accept the chosen action without complaint. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well Malleus, what do you think? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that Mark should come entirely clean and admit to his second email to me, which in its way was hardly any better. But I'm simply looking for a little bit of honesty, and a clear understanding that, whatever the perceived provocation, administrators have no special rights to send abusive emails without being sanctioned, and if Mark persists then he will be sanctioned. Which seems to be missing here in the "Oh, it's Malleus, must be his fault" attitude I see here. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You have my permission to post any of my e-mails publicly. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Post them yourself. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

What I said in the second e-mail was "Apologies for my e-mail last night, I wish I hadn't lost my temper. I'll resolve to merely avoid people that irritate me in the future." Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think Mark should voluntarily give up his mop for three months, but on the other hand, I think Malleus should be blocked for two weeks for calling Mark a "fucking pussy". And maybe throw in an interaction ban between the two pbp 22:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I realize this is AN, but could we try to pay closer attention before commenting? He didn't call Mark a pussy, he said one of Mark's actions was pissy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody should be sanctioned, report should be closed. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it had to happen eventually - I finally agree with GoodDay on something. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, close it, let Mark get away with it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what should be done, but I think some type of action needs to be taken. The action would have been inappropriate even on wiki. To hide that action behind an abusive email is worse. I like Mark, but allowing an action like this without consequence opens the door to similar actions, not by Mark because I don't believe he will do so again, but by others. Ryan Vesey 22:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

He admits to saying it and that he shouldn't have. It wasn't on-wiki...I would say if you want to pursue this, MF, arbcom would be the way to go. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Grow a thicker skin, Malleus. You clearly provoked him, most likely for the purposes of immediately running to WP:ANI and making a scene exactly like this. If anything you're the one that needs to be sanctioned here, preferably with a long, long block given your record. Jtrainor (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with the thickness of my skin, but about how many others have been similarly abused by administrators, and their complaints similarly dismissed? Malleus Fatuorum 23:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) I wonder if it's as long as the list of people who've been abused by you, MF. You come here and moan about someone calling you names, and then you call someone an arsehole in your edit summary - and you expect people to take you seriously. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Malleus blocked

I have blocked Malleus for one week for this edit summary. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

While I have less tolerance for abusive language on Wikipedia than I used to, Malleus was clearly provoked. If you're going to start blocking, there should be blocks all around, including Jtrainor for going out of his way to provoke Malleus. Ryan Vesey 23:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the action that led to the block occurred in a forum where (at least in this instance) unilateral action is out of line. If you felt this block was necessary, you should have discussed it. Sometimes we need to use some common sense and make sure our actions are appropriate to the situation. Ryan Vesey 23:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)VERY bad block People in primary school playgrounds go unpunished for MUCH worse than that! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• And once again, Wikipedia demonstrates that it is completely dysfunctional. Poorly thought out email, poorly thought out report to AN, poorly thought out intentional trolling comment by Jtrainor, poorly thought out response by Malleus, and poorly thought out block. Congratulations, everyone, on the trifecta. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a decent block to me. Malleus should have been blocked for his abusive comment on Mark's talk page which started this off. For him to turn around and complain about getting the same back from Mark is pretty silly (especially as this is entirely out of character for Mark, while Malleus' post was entirely in-character). The fact that he continued to make rude remarks here also justifies a block. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Have to agree. Obviously the admin that didn't get blocked took the comment to an email, because if he said it on Wiki, he knew it would cause an immediate.... something. I kind of think that Bongwarrior blocking a guy in an admin forum without asking, "hey should I block this guy?" warrants a block on Bongwarrior for letting his emotions take over. You guys have GOT to apply the same standards to admins as you do other editors or you will just get continually seen as bad actors in Wikipedia despite your good actions. -- Avanu (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

"Arse" is a very mild form of "ass", it also sounds more clever with a British accent. Let's just skip to the unblock now and get this over with, we all know its gonna happen. Tarc (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Rarely am I wont to defend Malleus, especially when he posts such a hypocritical complaint, but in this case, bad block. This can't help but to inflame drama. Resolute 23:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have undone this block. I gave the blocking admin a chance to do so, and they declined. This is clearly a bad (or at least excessive) block. Would any other editor have been blocked for a week for a mildly incivil edit summary after being provoked? No. If this ends up at AC, so be it. Black Kite (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• When Malleus isn't provoked or told what to do, he can work pretty well (I watched him turn an article into an FA over the course of this month). But when he does repeat offenses for incivility, I support blocks of him. Perhaps not 1 week, but probably 31-48 hours. I believe the block was justified; had this been his first offense he would've been warned at the most, but this is a long-term pattern for which blocks are perfectly reasonable.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• The only person that I can see that should've been threatened with a block here was JTrainor, who knew exactly what he was doing with that inflammatory posting to which Malleus responded. Black Kite (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think only Malleus has true responsibility for that edit summary. It's easy to provoke him, true, and it's his personality to get provoked, as I've observed. However, it's just not right to fault others for his behavior. --Jasper Deng (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry but that is ridiculous, Jasper. Or even bollocks. <g> The involved admins and even you are aware of the background, not just of this instance but more generally. There is more to it than the edit summary. - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Have we learned nothing from the ArbCom case? Bongwarrior started a discussion of the block above, which had been going for 16 minutes before you charged in and lifted the block for bad reasons (is it unjustified, or of too long a duration? - it can't be both as you state above), despite several other another admin endorsing the block. This should go to ArbCom. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Nick... it should have gone HERE, first. Just like an editor making an unsupported edit, an admin taking an administrative action on an admin forum should be well supported by the crowd. Most of you have 'the bit', and so any of you could have made the block. The question is whether you are in a consensus about whether Malleus' edit summary was deserving of a block. The block was done hastily, and I believe emotionally, and should have been done in consultation with the rest of you given the nature of the complaint. Now rather than dwell on this, can you issue trouts all around and say Civility is not optional, yet part of Civility requires that we be patient with those who act incivil at times? There's plenty of blame to go around, so if you plan to block everyone involved, then get consensus for it. If you plan to forgive and warn, then get consensus for that. Either way... be consistent. You send a very bad message when an admin can get away with saying fuck you, while an editor can't say arsehole. -- Avanu (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No he didn't. He blocked him and then started a discussion. If there was a situation where Malleus needed to be blocked here, the discussion should have happened first. Perhaps it can happen now. Black Kite (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement for admins to start a discussion prior to blocking, especially in pretty clear-cut cases such as this (an editor which a history of making abusive comments, and has been admonished by ArbCom for this, continuing to do so on a central noticeboard). Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would completely agree with you if this was a "clear-cut case". Which it obviously wasn't. Witness huge thread with various views. Black Kite (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocks are supposed to be Preventative. Not Punative as this one clearly was. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Blocks can be, as here, both punitive and preventative. When Malleus is provoked, blocking him prevents further of this until he wears off the prevocation.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• So we should block Malleus every time someone baits him, just in case he responds with an incivility? Have a think about that one, seriously. Black Kite (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but if he can't take the high road and results to the same behavior as the alleged "baiter", nobody should be hesitant to block him because they don't feel like dealing with the drama that comes with dealing with him. I agree that his comment in that summary should have resulted in a block. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

News just in - editors are human. If they're insulted, they tend to bite back. But you're saying we should block the baitee because they bite back (and because of who they are), but not the original baiter? Really? Black Kite (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Where in the hell did I say that? :-) I did not comment on that side of the matter. But since you asked, of course all users who are attacking, harassing or otherwise causing a disruptive environment should be blocked. Rjd0060 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes. WP:BAIT does state that the baited one should resist the bait. If it turns out that he takes the bait, then he's blocked to prevent more of this. --Jasper Deng (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don;t think that quoting an essay here really helps, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, if blocks are going to occur here, I believe Jtrainor, Mark, and Malleus should all receive one. Otherwise none should. To cherry pick Malleus from this bunch just because he is Malleus is out of line. Ryan Vesey 00:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

In terms of liabilities to blockage, I believe that in increasing order of block-worthiness: JTrainor, Mark Arsten, Malleus. However, I'm going to WP:AGF and assume that JTrainor meant not to do a baiting/provocation... and you want him to be blocked for that? Mark should've known much better and the only reason I'm not asking for his block is his acknowledgement and apology. Most importantly they didn't commit repeat offenses unless I'm missing something here. And no, I don't think Malleus' personality is an excuse for what he was blocked for.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Personally I don't really think that this leaves much room for WP:AGF... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 00:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

He meant well, but to be honest the next time he does it is going to end with sanctions. Has it been a long-term problem with him?--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"repeat offences"? Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Did Mark and JTrainor do their respective offenses here (e-mail PAs and baiting respectively) previously too? The answer to that question was yes for Malleus, hence why I supported the block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure any blocks were necessary, though if MF is blocked then Mark should probably be blocked too. I don't see JTrainor's comment as blockworthy - we're supposed to be adults here and we all face comments that wind us up. The big idea is to control yourself. Some can do that, some resort to name-calling. If you can't control your reactions to something you don't like, then you're going to get yourself into difficulty, admin or non-admin. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said, Mark acknowledged his mistake... and yes, next time he should get blocked. Now I think of it, "grow thicker skin" is quite provocative and a second offense should lead to a block for him too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is that no-one should have been blocked here. I mean, honestly, look at the sequence of events here. Mark reacted (very inappropriately) to something that Malleus said, and later on Malleus reacted (mildly incivilly) to something that JTrainor said. The result? Malleus gets blocked. Ludicrous. Can we close this now? Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) For sure, a repetition of the offense by either should probably be viewed dimly. But even though MF has a history of incivility, I thought the week-long block was a bit strong. That said, I'd take much more kindly to being told to grow a thicker skin than I would to being called an arsehole. This whole thing is pretty unedifying. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

All right, here's the view of a disinterested (and frankly uninterested) admin. No, Mark's e-mail wasn't well-considered, and as someone who's made intemperate remarks and gotten dragged to ANI (albeit for doing so at a banned user) this sort of thing happens. That it appears to be a one-off problem and he apologized for it would indicate it's not necessary to block him (I wasn't blocked for my episode either). Malleus' response, bringing it here, is fine; though I'd normally recommend ArbCom, I get why he wouldn't want to go that way. The edit summary was definitely not good, and it seems awfully strange to me that someone would say that after starting an AN thread involving incivility. He's under ArbCom restrictions, and a decision to block or not would fall within admin discretion; as the choice was to block, the block could conceivably be covered under AE; that it wasn't is probably more of an oversight than anything else. If it had been marked as an AE block, then I'd be the first to start calling for resignations, but it wasn't, so there's no point in doing so, but it was in no way a good precedent to set. Just like we aren't supposed to go protect/unprotect/discuss merits of protection, so it shouldn't be block/unblock/discuss merits of block (also shouldn't go unblock/block/discussion, just in case anyone wants to accuse me of being one-sided).
I'm not even going to get into whether certain things are or aren't offensive, because I think that's frankly a ridiculous debate. It should be self-evident that certain things are or aren't within any reasonable definition of civil discourse; however, the community will have to pull its head out of its ass to figure that out, and that's above my pay grade. Honestly, if I see any further attempt to debate the offensiveness of this or that remark, I'll shut it down and direct people here, because that's where such things should be figured out. In the meantime, I'll recommend everyone try what I'm doing right now; kicking back with a bottle of Tsingtao and reading a very interesting book on Aung San and his daughter. Not only interesting, but puts things in perspective. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Generalizing this

Do emails sent via wikipedia "count" in the same way posts count or not? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think that direct personal attacks via the interface falls under WP:NPA because NPA states "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia", which thus includes the emailuser function.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe off-wiki harassment should be dealt with more severely, but harassment through email is certainly within the realm of things action can be taken over. The statement on Special:EmailUser/Example "A private log of this action will be retained for the purpose of preventing abuse, and can be viewed by certain privileged users. This log does not identify the recipient, title, or contents of the e-mail. In cases of serious abuse, Wikimedia Foundation staff can verify the recipient account" shows that clearly. Ryan Vesey 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) According to Civility policy there is no difference. So yes, they should count the same way. If there is an exception, it would be good to see it, and see the justification as to why. -- Avanu (talk) 00:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. So what it means is that these kinds of messages shouldn't be sent until one is an admin. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How did you get to that conclusion? In fact, had Mark not replied to the e-mail acknowledging apology for it, and had it been seen by another admin, a block with e-mail disabled could've been possible.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How did I come to the conclusion? — Malleus has another 2 entries in his block og, Mark gets none. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't take your comment as being in the context of the above, as this is about generalization. I would actually support blocking Mark had he not aplogized, as I said before.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

This is generalized, because I've seen this before: "[Admin] is allowed to say this, because he was provoked. [User] gets instantaneous block because [user] lets himself be provoked" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't admins block admins? Because they fear the backlash. If we can, by perhaps a policy, eliminate the backlash from blocking an admin, this won't be a problem anymore.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware of the causes. They stick together no matter what. Pigs on animal farm. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Very true. But if we made a policy stating that no-one can dispute a brief (12-hour) NPA block for an admin, or something similar, we'd really be holding admins to higher standards.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You'd need an RfC that would naturally be overrun by admins, just like all other measures limiting the ruling class' power will be blocked by that same ruling class. Hopeless. Therefore: be nice until you become an admin, then you can do whatever you want. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

An RfC might succeed even if we make that assumption, as non-admins outnumber admins by a lot.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Nyeah... all admins will refuse to implement it. So no, ain't gonna happen. Being an admin means being completely immune. Jackpot. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:51, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly right, would never happen. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki e-mail should be abolished, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That could be a start, yes. At least we could plainly see the double standard right here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Never seen the point of it. Occasionally I get a constructive email, but in general as an editor, I never used it and as an admin, I simply get random abuse which I delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, get rid of e-mail. Perhaps we could have an RfC on that? Frankly, I like Mark and have never seen him causing trouble before, so I hate to say this but he should face at least some level of discipline here just for the sake of appearances. After all, admins should be the standard bearers here. However, we should take into account that (as far as I know) Mark doesn't have a history of this. AutomaticStrikeout 01:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose disabling EmailUser for everyone, as I often need to use it for matters that are not suitable for on-wiki discussion. However, it should be noted that even CheckUsers can't see the e-mail contents, only the fact that the user sent the email from a particular IP/user agent.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC here. It's my first RfC, so I may not have done everything correctly. AutomaticStrikeout 01:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bring it to ArbCom? Why? Been there, done that -- wasn't particularly useful. Nobody Ent 02:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Because here is certainly no better and if you bring the case there you can amuse yourself by making arbs take a stand on a contentious issue with an election coming up.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

do all agree that user Demiurge1000 is "scum", "sleaze boy" and "pathetic, anonymous worm"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[13] If not, why the user who attacked Demiurge1000 is not blocked yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.248.236 (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Considering this, the above, and virtually every other post at any of these noticeboards, perhaps it is time to have a serious discussion about making WP:NPA a zero-tolerance issue, exempt from the preventative not punitive mandate. (To a logical extent, no blocks for issues 3 weeks old) Ryan Vesey 00:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could adopt a rule that if someone is found to have made public attacks or incivil comments, they have to adopt the use of parliamentary language for a specified period of time, and if they fail to adhere to that standard, they get a 1 week block. Just offering an idea. -- Avanu (talk) 00:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not all, but I'm sure some do? :)

Insults like "sleaze boy" are something I've never ever seen or heard outside of The A-Team. Thus it is very hard for me to take such an insult seriously, or be offended by it.

It may offend others; it may contribute to lowering the tone of the discussion in question, and of Jimbo's talk page in general. But, the discussion wasn't exactly achieving a stellar level of constructiveness (some might think the entire thread served no purpose right from its start), and indeed Jimbo's talk page does see such threads quite often.

Another thing that makes it hard to take such insults seriously is that I predicted that the editor concerned would start calling me names, and he duly did so. His inability to answer the questions that I put to him, meant his collapse into ad hominem was pretty much inevitable. Hence I think the name-calling, pathetic though it was, was a result of frustration on the part of that editor, and probably not a matter for immediate action if it hasn't been an ongoing pattern. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sleaze boy suggested a named person was interested in slitting people's throats because someone else made a highly inappropriate comment at a website the named person frequents. I called sleaze boy on it. Sleaze boy then suggested I (also a named person) was interested in slitting people's throats because I also post on the website that the inappropriate comment was made. "Demiurge1000" (aka "sleaze-boy," I'm trying to be kind) has accused me of being a would be murderer based on the fact that I use the internet. And now this pathetic worm wants me "blocked" for refusing to treat that as acceptable. Have fun sorting the ethics of this out. Let's start by knowing his full name. That seems like a fair starting point. Dan Murphy (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You are aware that this thread was not started by Demiurge1000. I see no evidence that he was calling for you to be blocked. AutomaticStrikeout 00:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it was started by some anon IP. And Demiurge held off for awhile with calling for a block, and only came back a bit later with the whole faux-sorrow routine of "I wasn't going to ask for a block but now I unfortunetly see it's part of a pattern so it pains me, it really really pains me, to ask for a block". He's been around, but so have I and I have seen this kind of back handed hypocritical "I'm gonna pretend it really hurts me to do it" block shopping too often too count. Volunteer Marek  01:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I've never suggested a "named person" was interested in slitting people's throats, nor have I suggested that you were likely to do so either. Nor have I suggested that you should have been blocked for your puerile comments that were obviously made in frustration - in fact I suggested the opposite (read my comment above a little more carefully).

However, now that I look more closely, I see that you're also busy accusing other editors of being liars, today, and that you follow up your ridiculous behaviour with more of the same in this thread, and that you also have a block log for similar behaviour in the past. So yes, there does indeed seem to be an ongoing pattern here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Demiurge1000, your comments were, let's say "purposefully inaccurate", "intentionally untrue", "not accidentally false", "deliberately misleading", "calculatedly erroneous". You basically implied that someone made a nasty threat when such a person did no such thing. When Dan called you on it, you began insinuating similar odious things about him.

I dunno. Maybe that's not "sleazy". Maybe it's not a "lie". But one thing it clearly is is a very passive aggressive way of pissing others off and provoking them, seemingly on purpose. And then trying to weasel out a sanction out of that successful provocation in a venue like this. Volunteer Marek  01:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I "basically implied" no such thing. If you're going to accuse me of lying (as Bali ultimate, now signing as "Dan Murphy", seems delighted to do to other editors right now), then you're going to have to back that up. Further, as for "trying to weasel out a sanction out of that", I didn't start this thread; and my first reaction to this thread (before seeing Bali ultimate's similar behaviour today towards other editors, and his block log for the same behaviour in the past), was to suggest that a block was not necessary. Trying to twist things to pretend otherwise, does you little credit. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Some guy emailed me to point out that the "sleaze boy" and "anonymous coward" taunts towards me, and the calling another editor a liar (diff above), are all part of a pattern of similar stuff by Bali ultimate over the last few days, including "You're just another anonymous shit-heel using Wikipedia (since it ranks high in google searches) to spread hate.". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You want me to back it up? Sure no problem. You said: "The Saruman comparison might be a little over-dramatic, but then again, "Peter Damian" and friends are prone to being excessively dramatic themselves. "It just makes me want to fly to London, get a box-cutter, and start slitting nerdy little throats" isn't the sort of thing I've ever seen anyone in authority on Wikipedia get away with saying. The throats in question are those of certain Wikipedia editors."

Now, of course you damn well knew when you wrote that "Peter Damian" did not write the sentence you included right after mentioning him. Sure, you didn't explicitly state "Peter Damian said that he wanted to slit people's throats" - it'd be too easy to disprove that - but the way you structured your claim, first by mentioning Peter Damian, then by stating he is "excessively dramatic" and THEN quoting a statement he did NOT make, very clearly insinuates that the person you are discussing made that sentence. Which he did not.

Like I said, yes, it wasn't a 100% lie. Those are easy to disprove. But it was a ... "deliberate inaccuracy".

Maybe this kind of behavior isn't "sleazy". Maybe it isn't a "lie". But it sure as hey isn't decent. Volunteer Marek  01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you are not editing under your real name, which means that "You're just another anonymous shit-heel" and "anonymous worm" was said about you too. Peter Damian used socks to edit Wikipedia, which means that " You're also probably a "sock-puppet" though I don't give a shit about that kind of stuff (though I have no respect for the asshats that do it to avoid scrutiny)" was said about him too. And now this edit summary: "run along sleaze and accuse some other victim of being a murderer behind your veil of "anonymity"". Dan Murphy is an enormous net negative to the project.

• This is exactly why I recently removed Jimbo's talk page from my watchlist and stopped commenting on anything there. And don't see this thread going anywhere either. It's Saturday night, shut off the computer, go have a drink, and forget about it. That's what I will be doing right now. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Why is an obviously-logged-out and/or blocked user being allowed to troll WP:AN? There is nothing productive coming from this IP at all. Tarc (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• And, yes, Beeblebrox and Tarc, according to Dan Murphy you are "anonymous shit-heels" and "anonymous worms" too.

• I do not agree that Demiurge1000 is a "scum", "sleaze boy" nor a "pathetic, anonymous worm". Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

  As we all did. Thread should be closed and Murphy should be indeffed, along with any sockpuppets. Rcsprinter (gas) @ 09:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Other personal attacks by Dan Murphy

See here, here, here. It really doesn't matter who he's saying such things to, active editor, blocked editor, sockpuppet, ect. It's all inappropriate. Silverseren^C 05:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Gimme a break. Volunteer Marek  14:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Where do I drop off these cats?

Wrong venue. The place to go would be here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given the approach that we see sometimes to problem solving here, I thought it might help to drop off a herd of cats for some of the contributors to watch. Alternatively, you could focus on solutions that are *fair*, and working on processes that help focus the debate rather than drag it off on tangents. Ryan proposed a zero-tolerance policy for personal attacks (or perhaps gross incivility as well). Comments? -- Avanu (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Your cats appear to have not only run off, but to have stolen your signature. Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) More to the point, as we've seen above and many times before, what is one person's "gross incivility" is another person's "mild insult", and what is one person's "personal attack" is another person's "reasonable criticism". Until you tightly define anything, you can't hope to succeed. Black Kite (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Support. Until then, I won't give a fuck. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) You have insulted my ancestors and my Shao-Lin temple! I will not rest until I am revenged!!! I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Black Kite, how about a clear cut list of zero tolerance phrases, like "Fuck you", "You're an asshole", and "Belgium"? -- Avanu (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

How about a rotation of admins on AN and AN/I ?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Looking at this, it seems that part of the problem with such threads as the one Ed17 just closed is the free-for-all nature. Would it help to take any thread that is seeming to go out of control and move it from the general free-for-all into a pre-designated system where admins (and editors) are restricted from participating unless they meet a certain criteria? You could do it by the day of the month the thread started, along with the letters in the username of the person. Something that would ensure a degree of randomness and fairness, and would limit the number of people who are chiming in. Opinions are like apples.... or was that another word? :) But honestly, for threads that tend to spiral out of control, limiting the number of people seems like it might help things come to a more healthy resolution. -- Avanu (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Totally-involved admins may continue to comment, but it's a sad truth that admins will never be the same as non-admins.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as unenforceable and not practical, and against the volunteer spirit of Wikipedia. --Rschen7754 01:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - no offence intended but has 1 April come early? I do not get this at all. @Jasper, I especially do not understand your "admins/non-admins" comment for this wrt ANI, which is even less an "admin only" noticeboard than here. But I am tired and off to bed. Maybe I'm missing the bleeding obvious, - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The issue is not that anyone can speak up, it's that some people say and do things that unnecessarily raise the drama level. It's not a good idea to exclude most people because a few people don't moderate themselves or their actions particularly well. I haven't seen a good solution to these kinds of messes yet, but it's worth stressing that this specifically isn't it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

A small team of people, staying focused, seems more likely to come to a conclusion more quickly. In the thread above, I can't tell whether it was important for the admin to have a change of heart, or whether the collective will was sidetracked by Malleus getting blocked. What is the lesson learned from the overall thread above? In fact, it was closed because it got derailed by side issues. I don't see how submitting something to a committee is contrary to the 'volunteer spirit' or 'discriminatory', but I suppose anything goes here. -- Avanu (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

That's because, in the context of civility & respect for fellow editors, WP doesn't have a collective will. Nobody Ent 02:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Qualified support I'd be totally willing to be part of this as soon as I know how much it pays. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't even really feel like making up a reason. Tarc (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as impractical and discriminatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tarc.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC))
• Oppose per Beyond My Ken. AutomaticStrikeout 03:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note

I closed it before Ed17, for the record. Just that Black Kite disagreed. See my talk page for more. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 09:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I unstruck my comment and one that cited it. Yes it was flippant, meant to reflect the absurdity of the proposal itself. Tarc (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Karaims

We need a new Admin over at Karaims an endangered Tatar ethnic group associated with the 18th century Unitarian movements of Eastern Europe but often confused with Karaite Jews due to the general trend among Unitarian groups (e.g. the related Molokans and Subbotniks etc.) with non-conventional Islamic origins in Eastern Europe to convert to Judaism. The third admin has now quit without adjudicating on a request to return the article to its original and less exclusive name (although he did try to stop users from re-factoring each others talk page comments by archiving the origins of the dispute). I have tried more than once to ask us to come together, but there are a few religious fanatics who are a bit hell-bent on deleting appropriately sourced facts from this ethnicity page which do not fit with their own fundamentalist POV pushing. Be warned that you will see a lot of division, a lot of ignorance, a lot of sock-puppetry and tag-team work e.g. to make sure the 3RR is not broken by one etc., avoiding dialogue and discussion, disregard for attempts to placate, a lot of ad-hominem and strawman attacks, and moreover the requested move although appropriate is a license nightmare due to copy and pasting instead of editors using the move function. This dispute has been on and off since a move back in 2004 by a user who has since changed his mind about what he did. The recent conflicts have been building up since August. Over 20 nice people have left this discussion over the years, most of them recently. If you have the skills for complex Sysop stuff, are interested in endangered Ethnic groups, unconventional Islamic sects in Eastern Europe, NPOV and have a lot of patience and nerve as well as time on your hands then please do step in to arbitrate. Kaz 07:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

For the future

Can we say there is solid and unequivocal consensus from the Admin corps that any admin who uses the email feature in future to send unprofessional *and* uncivil commentary will have their admin bit revoked, or at least have a block/ban of a certain length? Or shall we continue in a gray area on this? -- Avanu (talk) 09:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment I'm a bit on the fence with regards to this proposal. Proposal 1 is a pretty heavy punishment which would need Arbcom to step in and really needs to be indicative of a sustained pattern of abuse. 2 and 3 aren't really all that different. Neither of these are really tenable because some will just bring up the whole "preventative vs punitive" thing and these 2 are definitely punitive and would probably cos wheel warring or at the very least days of bitter drama on AN or ANI where the blockee gets blocked/unblocked a few times and everyone wanders off with a lot of time wasted and nothing achieved. Don't get me wrong, personally I feel that the civility policy is interpreted in so many ways that it's mostly a headfuck but it should be something that needs to be applied even more strongly than it is now. The only consensus that you'll see in this RFC is the lack of one. Blackmane (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• This proposal has been precipitated by a very recent, rare, event. I don't think we need to introduce either a fixed penalty system or a 'do nothing' solution. I feel any future occurrences can be adequately examined and handled on a case by case basis. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

• Impossible. It's very easy for me to send an e-mail to someone that says "I like Fruit Loops". The receiver could forward the e-mail to someone and make the original say "I think you're a Fruit. I should Loop a noose around your neck". We cannot penalize something that is so unsecured that it can be modified. dangerouspanda 12:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm in agreement with Kudpung on this; this is very much an edge case. Our policy pages and help documentation are already so full of them as to be useless. Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, such cases should be handled depending on the circumstances without any standardised sanctions. De728631 (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
• Where do we draw the line? Suppose I use the on Wikipedia interface to email an admin some criticism, this by function reveals my email. If the admin writes back a terribly uncivil response, are we saying that sanction would occur if the admin used the in interface email this user function, but would not occur if they used the reply function in their email client, and thereby bypassed Wikipedia entirely? That seems horribly arbitrary, yet to include the latter case would be equally problematic, as when do you draw the line and admit it is off wiki conduct that cannot be dealt with here? Monty₈₄₅ 15:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC - PICK ONE:

• Proposal #1 - You lose adminship.

• Proposal #2 - You get a civility block for 3 days.

• Proposal #3 - You get a civility ban for 1 week, which requires careful and professional interaction for that period of time.

• Proposal #4 - Nothing at all/Trout/Slap on wrist.

.