Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:43, 2 November 2015

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{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

Administrative discussions

ANI thread concerning Yasuke

(Initiated 38 days ago on 2 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1162 § Talk: Yasuke has on-going issues has continued to grow, including significant portions of content discussion (especially since Talk:Yasuke was ec-protected) and accusations of BLP violations, among other problems. Could probably be handled one sub-discussion at a time. --JBL (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure review of The Telegraph RfC

(Initiated 32 days ago on 9 July 2024) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues's discussion seems to have died down. Hopefully I've put this in the correct section. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you could put the draft on the discusssions about discussions page, WP:DfD? Tom B (talk) 09:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Compassionate727. I want to make sure this is still on your radar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it's very nearly done. There's no reason I shouldn't finish it tomorrow, if not tonight. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Done}}. I fear I'm going to ruffle some feathers with that, but I do believe it both the correct outcome and the most inoffensive one. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 22:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...why do you think the most inoffensive option is to re-close the original RFC to Option 1? What's your evidence that was the consensus of that original RFC? Loki (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undone per WP:BADNAC#2 by another user. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The close has since been rescinded by the closer, so is very much due for closing again. CNC (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

Requests for comment

RFA2024, Phase II discussions

Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:

(Initiated 100 days ago on 2 May 2024) Administrator recall
(Initiated 97 days ago on 5 May 2024) Designated RfA monitors
(Initiated 97 days ago on 5 May 2024) Reminder of civility norms at RfA

Many thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this as an important discussion very much in need of and very much overdue for a formal closure. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... designated RfA monitors (at least in part). voorts (talk/contributions) 16:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done designated RfA monitors. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gaza genocide#RfC on the inclusion on the BU Today article in the lede

(Initiated 49 days ago on 22 June 2024) nableezy - 17:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Titles of European monarchs

(Initiated 48 days ago on 22 June 2024) - I thank the Wikipedia community for being so willing to discuss this topic very extensively. Because 30 days have passed and requested moves in this topic area are already being opened (For reference, a diff of most recent edit to the conversation in question), I would encourage an uninvolved editor to determine if this discussion is ready for closure. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Also, apologies if I have done something incorrectly. This is my first time filing such a request.) AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is dragging on ad nauseam. I suggest an admin closes this, possibly with the conclusion that there is no consensus to change. PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Anti-Defamation League#RfC: Wikipedia reliability section

(Initiated 40 days ago on 30 June 2024) - Note: Part of the article and talk page are considered to be a contentious topic, including this RfC. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 447#Reliability_of_Thomas_Lockley

(Initiated 38 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hermann_Göring#Rfc_for_Herman_Göring's_Lede_Image_(2024)

(Initiated 37 days ago on 4 July 2024) Discussion is ready to be closed. Nemov (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity#Nikola_Tesla_birthplace_,_review_after_10_years

(Initiated 36 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Edit_filter_manager#RfC about the status of this page

(Initiated 34 days ago on 6 July 2024) Discussion is fairly simple but as this is a policy discussion it should likely receive uninvolved closure. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 04:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:La France Insoumise#RfC: How should the political position of La France Insoumise be described?

(Initiated 33 days ago on 7 July 2024) Discussion has already died down and the 30 days have elapsed. Uninvolved closure is requested. Thanks a lot! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election#RfC: Inclusion of parties in the Infobox

(Initiated 33 days ago on 8 July 2024). Ready for closing, last !vote was 12 July by looks of it. CNC (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: National Post

(Initiated 32 days ago on 8 July 2024) Discussion has mostly died down in recent days. Uninvolved closure is requested. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pretty clear SNOW close to me. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:52, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't need a formal closure, but

Done anyway. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Proposal to revise CSD R3

(Initiated 32 days ago on 9 July 2024) Poster withdrew the RfC but due to the language used, I think a summary by an WP:UNINVOLVED editor would be preferable. Nickps (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hosni_Mubarak#Rfc_for_lede_image_for_Hosni_Mubarak

(Initiated 30 days ago on 10 July 2024) This is ready to close. Nemov (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of South Korean girl groups#RfC for whether there should be an "end date" on active groups just because they don't have activity

(Initiated 30 days ago on 11 July 2024) Participants requested for proper closure. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 18:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Soni (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	3	31	34
TfD	4	0	4
MfD	4	1	5
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	75	25	100
AfD	0	0	0

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Other types of closing requests

Talk:There was no such thing as Palestinians#Merge to Golda Meir?

(Initiated 254 days ago on 29 November 2023) Discussion started 29 November 2023. Last comment 25 July 2024. TarnishedPath^talk 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024

(Initiated 77 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS

(Initiated 74 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing...— Frostly (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frostly Are you still planning on doing this? Soni (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soni, yes - have drafted close and will post by the end of today. Thanks! — Frostly (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker

(Initiated 72 days ago on 30 May 2024) Contentious merge discussion requiring uninvolved closer. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2024 Nuseirat_rescue operation#Proposed_merge_of_Nuseirat_refugee_camp_massacre_into_2024_Nuseirat_rescue_operation

(Initiated 62 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Split proposal

(Initiated 33 days ago on 8 July 2024) – Editors would feel more comfortable if an uninvolved closer provided a clear statement about whether a consensus to WP:SPLIT exists, and (if so) whether to split this list into two or three lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Kaunas#Split section "Coat of arms" into individual article

(Initiated 374 days ago on 2 August 2023) – the request to split Kaunas#Coat of arms into a separate article was started more than one year ago and so far it received no support from other users, while two users opposed it. Consequently, I think it is pointless to leave this discussion open and it should be finally closed. -- Pofka (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

Request for RFC close review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closure left as is. I don't think I can stay that the close really is endorsed, though. There is no consensus to change the closure of the RFC, and in any case the discussion has continued beyond the RFC, so retroactively re-opening the RFC wouldn't serve a purpose.--Aervanath (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I closed a RFC on Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Serbs_as_.22constitutive.22_nation_in_Socialist_Republic_of_Croatia as an editor closer. I found consensus and closed the RFC. One of the participants FkpCascais is unhappy with the close and continues to fight against the findings of consensus even after I tried to clarify.Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Clarification_of_RFC. I am asking for a review of the close. Thanks. AlbinoFerret 01:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern European politics is generally a very contentious topic -- there are Discretionary Sanctions covering it -- and it probably would have been better to have allowed an admin to close the RfC. Although there is no absolute ban on NACs for such subjects, there generally is less of a problem with an admin close compared to a non-admin close when the subject matter is contentious. BMK (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly should have been an admin closing, and probably sanctioning Albino for clearly copy/pasting the wish of one side, recomending ignoring 20 reliable sources, and saying he clarified when in fact he refused to answer questions I made him. Can an admin please see the case, it is unbelivable what happend there. FkpCascais (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctioning Albino for the close is not a reasonable suggestion. There was no bad faith act here, AlbinoFerret has a long history of making closures without bias. HighInBC 03:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is my fist time I interacted with him and all I can say is that his close is the most tendentious close I have ever seen here over the last decade. Copy/pasting the demands of one side, recomending the removal of content sourced with 20 reliable sources and the replacement of my content with a sentence saying the opposite and incorrectly sourced? ~~Also, I had already told him I was going to ask for a review of hiis close, so why is he reporting me now?~~ FkpCascais (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, Albino doesnt even know the difference between "Contitutional" and "constitutive" (him claiming its the same after I called his atention for the mistake he made in the close by mixing constitutive with constitutional) and is making such a sensitive close in a contentious area such as this one? FkpCascais (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a word mistake, I corrected it. Mainly because of a concern of yours brought up during the clarification. AlbinoFerret 04:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)@BMK Thats true, there is usually less problems with an admin close. This close is good though BMK. I am sure it will be supported. If it had not been clear, I wouldn't have closed it and left it to an admin. AlbinoFerret 02:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The case is actually not very complicated at all. I made a resume at bottom of the talk-page. AlbinoFerret, please correct me if you believe I said something wrong there, or add if you believe something is missing. Also, I will like to apologise for having proposed santions here to you. I do find your rationale wrong, tendentious and going against several rules by itself, but seing the situation in the long discuions I understand you were missguided by the superior number of users opposing me and you applied WP:POLL. Thank you for asking for a review. FkpCascais (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RFC's are not a vote count. I did not apply poll. AlbinoFerret 04:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain then. You come to a RfC dealing with an issue regarding a Serbo-Croatian dispute. There are clearly two sides, one formed by 3-4 Croatian users opposing the sourced text I added, and me, alone but backed by 20 reliable sources. Since they lack sources, they are saying the matter is irrelevant thus should be removed, an argument hard to understand since in a article Serbs of Croatia the constitutional status of Serbs in Croatia is basically the most important thing. Also, they are saying the term is not well defined, thus clearly claiming the 20 authors of my sources are not knowing what they are talking about, an argument hardly sustainable. You close the RfC claiming consensus and agreement between the parties, while your rationale is just a copy of the arguments of their side. Sorry, but in my view your rationale is clearly a way of using WP:POLL to get perfectly sourced material out of the article. FkpCascais (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am an uninvolved editor, I dont edit in this area. I could really care less what side of this discussion gained consensus. Thats not the role of a closer. The role of a closer is to determine where consensus (agreement) lies. As for pointing out things mentioned by the majority opinion, well thats part of closing, to show what the agreement is. I will now wait for others to chime in on the close. AlbinoFerret 19:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note In the interests of full disclosure I have removed the comment of a block evading user from this thread: [1]. This user has been evading blocks for months now with an unlimited number of fresh IPs. I have no opinion on the RFC, I suggest those involved in the dispute give some time for an uninvolved review to form here. HighInBC 15:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The close was a reasonable assessment of consensus. FkpCascais' frustration is understandable given that he presented a large list of sources that appear to support the proposed wording and some solid arguments for which he should be commended. But after you eliminate the original research, personal attacks, and tendentious arguments from obvious sock puppets, there were still strong arguments made by a couple of experienced editors that the sources are not adequate to support the proposed wording. This was summarized accurately by AlbinoFerret in my opinion. The only thing I might have done differently is to close the discussion as no consensus. Of course nothing prevents FkpCascais, or anyone else, from seeking a new consensus for slightly different wording based on the same sources.- Mr X 17:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MrX. Despite not agreing with me totally, I do understand perfectly well what you are saying. However, while I read you perfectly well, that doesnt happend at all with AlbinoFerret, his close, and his posterior clarifications. Allow me to explain what concretely makes this close unacceptable in my view: he recomends removing a clear fact saying "X happend" and replace it with "Serbs perceved X happened". I presented 20 sources clearly backing the fact (there are more, I can bring them as well), all English-language, and clearly demonstrating that it is a mainstream view on the issue. No sources are saying the opposite or challenging it. But, the sentence he recomends using provides a clear indication that X didnt happend and only Serbs perceved it that way. So his close recomendation enters in direct confrontation with all sources and the scholar mainstream view on the matter. And to make it even worste, the only source backing that wording is not even saying it, but just uses that wording because the author deals with Serbian perception of the events, but not saying they are the only ones. So the sentence is not sourced at all. Implementing his close would break several fundamental and editing rules. Regarding the rest of the close arguments, saying that my text should be removed because we dont have the exact definition of "loss of contitutive nation status" is basically saying the autors are saying that but not knowing what they are talking about. Over 20 authors use the expression and some explain it quite well, it is not truth the term is not defined. Some sources even give exemples. And last, he says there is consensus and agreement between the parties, well, he missed the fact that this particular discussion was between 4 users on one side, and one on another. Well, the 4 of them agree ammong them, and I am opposing, so he is just using the disproportion in numbersagainst me to claim there is agreement and consensus. There is consensus and agreement ammong editors of one side, but that is not news. So, yes, we can work towards making the section better and better, I even asked Joy to provide sugestions. But we should not remove perfectly sourced text because of the reasons presented. FkpCascais (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I cannot in all honesty support or oppose the closure due to the sheer length of the debate, I have read the various "requests for clarification" and "application of consensus" after the RfC's closure, and I have noticed a slightly worrying attitude on AlbinoFerret's side of, to paraphrase, "I froze consensus, so now you must accept it, regardless of the validity of the arguments you're now making [which may or may not be repetitions of ones made before]". Other editors also repeatedly noted that having the specific statement FkpCascais was superfluous, meant beating a dead horse, or was a detail too small to be included, even though it was supported by many sources and notwithstanding the quite compellinig "the sky is blue and every sources says so!" argument. I think there is ground to look at this RfC's material yet again. LjL (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much noise here that things get lost. Let me repeat this little tidbit I posted over there a month ago: "We have an RFC about a single ancient hot-button political issue that refers to Serbs in SR Croatia, while at the same time the article has an entirely empty section about the Serbs in SR Croatia." In the meantime, the section was expanded, but basically only as far as incorporating teaching this particular controversy in there, and some material was moved from the next section, which makes for a more graceful transition into the next section. That is why I've told FkpCascais that their rants are pointless - because the effort expended on this issue is disproportionate to the actual benefit to the encyclopedia from pontificating on this. Readers are told at length about the formal status of the Serbs of Croatia, which serves as a lead-in into a huge section about a war. But the war didn't happen because of these intricate formalities, so the article has been pretty much completely missing the mark in this regard. And instead of fixing that real issue, we're spending a month squabbling over a talking point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, if that particular point has enough decent sources supplied by FkpCascais, then FkpCascais's wording can be used and the matter closed. I don't think it's fair to just say "there are more important things to take care of in the article", if that's just about the only criticism to the sources-backed point. LjL (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will briefly point out the problem that was brought out in the RFC. The sources FkpCascais wants to use dont define the terms that he wants to use, and the one source that does, he doesnt want to use. That is the core of the problem I saw in the RFC. Can an editor gather a bunch of sources and define the terms they use, but dont define, as he wants them to be defined. The consensus said no, we need a definition of the terms from a source. Then they said (paraphrasing) Hey this other article on a similar subject has a claim and its sourced and explained, lets use that. AlbinoFerret 22:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do define the term, and I do want to use the source from the sentence you want to insert in, however, that source is just saying Serbs perceved events that way, and basically just further backing what the 20 of mine say. I said several times that I opose the missuse you want todo with the source, which is to give a clear impressions that only Serbs perceved events that way but the reality is different. She desnt say that in the source. FkpCascais (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the term in question again? "Constitutive nation"? LjL (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. AlbinoFerret 23:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a term that necessarily needs a contextual definition to be used according to the dictionary meanings of the two components. If otherwise reliable sources use it without explaining it, I'd go along and use it without trying to explain it (while of course, trying to explain it in imaginative ways could easily constitute original research). LjL (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources of mine even explain what the loss of the status means and provide exemples. FkpCascais (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LjL That what I got from reading the RFC, its one of the reasons the consensus wants a definition, or a source that defines or explains, to avoid OR. While FkpCascais claims they do, multiple editors point out they dont. The other editors even suggested finding a source and then adding the claim after it was discussed. AlbinoFerret 23:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But as long as you don't attempt to give a definition, it can't be OR (since there is no research being made - or every article that's lacking some information would be doing original research, which is an absurd idea), right? You'd only be stating what the sources say while possibly leaving some terms loosely defined / defined only in lay dictionary terms (something the sources potentially also do). LjL (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But FkpCascais wants to use the loss of "Constitutive nation" to imply some kind of loss of rights. But since its not defined, it cant be compared to what came afterwards. The source the consensus wants to use says there was no real difference, just words on paper (paraphrasing). AlbinoFerret 23:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if the sources (assuming they're agreed to be reliable, of course!) proceed to explain what in their view the loss of rights actually was, in theory and in practice, then that can be reported, even if the term is left undefined. If the problem is that the sources, by elaborating on constitutionally-undefined terms, are doing original research... well, sources can and should do that. LjL (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats another issue in the rfc brought up by multiple editors, the sources are not really reliable for the extraordinary claim if they do make a close statement. Lack of references and definitions or explanations pretty much kill them. Its like a source saying the sun is green and then going on to describe the color green when other sources say its yellow. Read the RFC, I know its very long, but these are not my arguments, I just closed and I am probably missing some of the finer points. Since the close things have gotten very busy for me. AlbinoFerret 23:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since FkpCascais presented a selection of sources again (I presume the ones he considered the most conclusive) on the article's talk page, I went for a quick analysis of them and of the four of them, it seems to me that two actually contradict his position, and the other two are relatively dodgy. LjL (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You incorrectly read one of them, strange, as it doesnt say at all what you claim. The "dodgy" can be excluded, there are 16 more. FkpCascais (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it quite did; anyway, I've replied there. If there are 16 more, than why did you pick two dodgy one and two that can at least be read as being against you? Seems like a poor choice of "best sources to present", if you ask me. LjL (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user went there and made clear missquotations, anyone can go and see the sources and see what she wrote. The "dodgy" one are from a university professor. But thank you for your input. FkpCascais (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That assumes we find the argument based on those other sources to be based on an accurate reading of those sources. Sadly, I have only seen proof to the contrary. (Plus many walls of text that I really don't have time to wade through.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Endorse~~ ~~Partly endorse~~ Fully endorse close, I can see now that the RfC likely got so long and involved because of waters getting murky due to complicated interactions, but that consensus was reached through, among other things, acceptably solid assessment of the sources provided. LjL (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC) However, there is at least space for reviewing the apparent decision to drop any mention of change in constitutional status: it factually happened, whether or not the statuses were clearly defined in the old or new Constitutions. LjL (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC) This has to end now, too many editors have been victims of the windmill fighting and it's quibbling over a tiny change in wording that may or may not have happened in a Constitution. End it already. LjL (talk) 01:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An endorse coming from a person who went there saying one source says "Constitution did not really change the position of Serbs in Croatia" when the source says "Some will certainly argue that the provision contaiined in the 1990 Croatian Constitution did not really change the position of the Serbs in Croatia as in the...". Like you really didnt saw the begining of the sentence that changes quite a lot everything, didnt you? This user did the same with the other exemples, anyone can go and check it. Lying like this in order to influence AN report should be sanctioned hard. FkpCascais (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel I should be sanctioned, the you should probably report me at WP:ANI. I do concur with urging people to check at least the four sources given, and whether they tend to present Serb loss of rights as established fact or as their view. LjL (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not loose time making a separate report on you. After all in my long experience here I have seen often users making fake claims in reports in order to manipulate the outcome (I indeed find en.wiki too permissive regarding this). It is an old strategy done in other to make the other side loose time and write about your false claims and in the end the thread is clutered and an idea of a clear case is replaced by an impression how it is complicated and makes possible involvment of neutral admins less probable. Your fake quotation of the sources are here, and your immediate rush to come here and influence the outcome with your false assesment is here as well. So an admin can see exactly what sources say and what you wrote there. I will leave it to them. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, your two attempts to silence the fact there is debate about your wording are noted, and I sent a stern warning to stop removing tags and edit warring like that. LjL (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fkp, you should ask yourself if it is likely that LjL, an editor of over 10 years here is "lying" to subvert the truth, or if perhaps they are just interpreting the sources differently than you. The information is not as cut and dry and you seem to think, there is certainly room for contrary interpretations to yours. I know you have been dealing with a very disruptive single purpose account/ip/sock in this subject, but it does not serve you or anyone else to assume bad faith about well established editors.

I semi-protected the page to stop the edit warring from the IP. If I see further edit warring I have no desire to full-protect the page, so please don't edit war. HighInBC 16:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I was initially slightly leaning towards FkpCascais's views as there were certain statements by RfC closer AlbinoFerret that I had found concerning about the way consensus may have been determined, but then things quickly deteriorated after I tried to make an analysis of the particular sources that FkpCascais presented for this review. I did, in fact, misread one quotation (which, I've got to say, doesn't really change my overall assessment of those four sources), and FkpCascais immediately jumped the gun claiming that I had done that intentionally. That is not the case. I likely haven't edited a single article about ex-Yugoslavian countries before, I don't live in any of those countries, and I can't see why I might intrinsically have a prejudice aginst FkpCascais' point of view. LjL (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC, they could be Christ in person, it doesnt change the fact that:

They say

- "Constitution did not really change the position of Serbs in Croatia"

when what the source says is the following:

- "Some will certainly argue that the provision contaiined in the 1990 Croatian Constitution did not really change the position of the Serbs in Croatia as in the... However, .. What does this mean? It means primarely that Serbs in Croatia have been down-graded from nation to national minority, or to use a new European euphemism - an ethnic community."

Can be seen here. Why did they removed just part of one sentence and firmly claim it says that, when by seing the rest of the sentence and the paragraph it is clear that it is very different what the author is saying. HighInBC, they didnt saw the rest of the sentence? They decontextualised the wording in accident?

Another case, for this source they said:

- "plainly says "Though granting equal rights to the Serbs and other nationalities, the 1990 constitution did not grant the Serbs the status of constituent nation of the republic". This is claiming that the change of status did not have any impact on their rights, which appears to directly contradict your claim."

Please, I am reading the page, how did they get their conclusion, please if they can explain. FkpCascais (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman, LjL is continuing to openly and now clearly lie at the discussion there. Please help. If this is a political matter and my wording needs to be removed, just say it, but tell me so I should know. FkpCascais (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. If people don't like it they are free to ask better and more focussed questions. This RfC was a mess, and AlbinoFerret did a pretty decent job of drawing out something approaching a conclusion. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually started a new section with more focused and distinct questions now, as I suspect that, despite FkpCascais's somewhat scorching ways, they may still have a point about part of the issue (I must, however, state the obvious, namely that this is not another RfC, which I couldn't possibly start after the first one has been closed and is being reviewed). LjL (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, dont pretend to be sudenly "good" now, you just blatantly lied about the content of the sources clearly twisting them in the ugliest way ever. I am out, you all do whatever you want, remove my text and ignore the 20 sources. Just remember, people around the world still have the books to read where everything I edited is said. Hide it here on our article, OK, I am not going to continue to fight for a free and just Wikipedia, obviously there are higher political interests and there is no real interess on behalve of no one to see what is really going on here. I am out. FkpCascais (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse a close. Calling that mess an RFC would be a taking an extremely liberal view of RFC. As Guy says, if there is significant disagreement with the close a new RFC should be run with properly formed questions, and perhaps without FkpCascais's histrionics. Blackmane (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final note

This is my edit and here is the list with even more sources backing my text. This is a highly politicized matter because it may imply Croatian governament had a slight share of guilt for the ugly events that happend there at that period. But it is prefered to hide it despite being mentioned in all those books, I will not involve myself more, I dont even know what was I thinking in first place to get involved, I am not a nationalists I have a happy life, I faced alone an entire group, and it was that feeling of justice that drove me there. I will edit other things I enjoy, if anyone wants to see what happened here, I left here the links, if not, I will not care anymore. FkpCascais (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will just leave a note that LjL blatantly lied on the discussion and here on the report. Behaviors like those should be sanctioned hard. It is not the first time I see that on reports, WP would really benefit with creating a rule that would sanction this. Thank you all, best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I know, how many more times will you complain about me "lying" ("through my teeth" or not) before you stop being blinded about your by-now-obvious rage about this topic? It's a shame, because right from the start I've been sympathetic to parts of your position and have tried to distinguish between them and the parts that seemed quite dubious, but you've only got angrier and angrier. Oh well. LjL (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have any rage, I dont care anymore. Everyone can see what you said sources say and what they actually say. You lied as good as you can. Someone doing that certainly has no good intentions, can only pretend to have, just as the entire pharse of your initial involvment here. I can totaly demonstrate how you lied if necessary. Feel good about what you did, I am out, goodbye. FkpCascais (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, someone who reported me for edit-warring would have certainly report me for calling them a lier. You didnt even if the acusations of lying I made you happend before. You didnt because you know if you reported me for that, your lies would have been scrutinised and you would be caught. FkpCascais (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't because I have no real motivation to be particularly upset at any perceived personal attacks, and also because your statements were made in places like this very noticeboard, which is full of administrators looking at them, who can make of them what they will. LjL (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FkpCascais your continued assumptions of bad faith are getting out of hand. LjL does not deserve to be treated this way just because they are taking a contrary point of view. You are rapidly entering the territory of WP:AN where attentions turns around to you. If you cannot discuss this content dispute without resorting to accusations against those who disagree with you then I suggest you avoid it. HighInBC 22:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why dont we see then exactly if they lied or not? FkpCascais (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cause lets not pretend it is not important. First they lie about what a source is saying. And no, it is not a slight missinterpretation, but aa total lie, turning 180 degrees what the source says and what they write it says. And then based on the lie about the ource, they build up more lies such as "There are contradicting sources". So you are saying I should ignore it? If so, if we are condoning lies, I am out, I have nothing to discuss there then, if one side can cheat by lying why to bother? Also, I told here that I am out, so I dont know why are you saying then all that. If you want to see if they lied, OK, if not, I am out. Will always be here for any clarifications if asked by an admin. FkpCascais (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I mixed-up one source and LjL recognised she missread another. I hope we can now go trough the sources and confirm what they say and find the most neutral wording as possible. FkpCascais (talk) 05:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please close this

Looks like the discussion has died, would an admin please close this section. AlbinoFerret 13:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out FWIW that discussion is ongoing (in a somewhat haphazard manner) at the talk page, and the RfC's resolution has in my assessment remained dead letter. LjL (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that discussions and such after the close cant have an impact on the close itself in a review. If other discussions or RFC's present new consensus thats fine, but has no impact on the closer at the time of close. AlbinoFerret 18:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that I was just sayin'. LjL (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clearer: I wasn't disagreeing that this review should be closed (endorsing the RfC close, certainly), just pointing out as possibly-visible-final-words that the huge can of worm hasn't stopped leaking yet anyway. LjL (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LjL, you have really tried to solve the issues on that page after the close. AlbinoFerret 01:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

RfC: administrator election reform

The RfC at Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC looks like it is going to be close on several questions, and there is a high probability that multiple editors will dispute any closing comments. Might I suggest two or three experienced admins work together on writing up the closing? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Briggs (musician) might be a was copyright violation

Karen Briggs (musician) doesn't have any sources. While I was looking for sources to put in, I noticed that the text was the same, word for word, with an article from the Diva Foundation. The original article is gone, but there's a 2007 archived copy. At first I thought that the Diva Foundation article was a copy of the Wikipedia article, since the Diva Foundation archive is dated 2007 and the article was started, with much of the copied content, in 2006. However the first version of the article gives the Diva Foundation as a source.

I'm not sure what the best course of action is. I'd be happy to re-write the article (I was planning to anyways), but does it need to be done from scratch, or do the copied parts get deleted, or am I reading this all wrong and it's the Diva Foundation that's the copyvio.

Oh, also, this article is clearly a copy-paste of the Wikipedia article (the link is from this August), so is there a template to mark that source as a copyright violation of Wikipedia? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the copyright issue, I think a rewrite will serve here - there is still some similarity. Regarding Meekospark.com putting a {{Backwardscopy}} on the talk page should suffice - the fact that the first version of our article is highly dissimilar to the meekospark.com article while the current version is very similar supports the idea that meekospark's a copy from Wikipedia. Asking for assistance on Wikipedia:Copyright problems may help.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo-Jo Eumerus. I completely re-wrote the article, and this time it's even got citations. Should anything be done about the old versions of the article? I also changed the section title in case someone sees it and deletes the article without realizing that it's been fixed. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for sure, but Revision deletion may be appropriate here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, The Squirrel Conspiracy! As you can see, some of the content was also present here, quite definitely before our article was created. I've requested revdeletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Justlettersandnumbers. I'd really like to know how you found that serve.com source, though. It would have been useful when I was re-writing the article, and I thought that I found every source there was to find. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of Billy Hathorn in 2013

I may be right off track here, but here goes. This is further to a discussion that began at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 August 7 in relation to the article Timothy Dwight Hobart. I've no first-hand knowledge of the history, but, as I understand it:

A CCI for Billy Hathorn, requested by cmadler, was opened on 27 July 2011; it now has about 4800 articles outstanding, or some 7% of our total backlog of 72,000.
The user was indeffed for copyright violations and BLP issues by Ironholds on 29 September 2011,
repeatedly evaded the block by socking,
and was unblocked by Amalthea on 27 April 2013 with the comment "not effective"; Amalthea later wrote "a bazillion edits that should really have been looked at as part of the CCI are now untrackable for us".

I believe that two questions arise, one small and one large:

Is there community consensus that Hathorn should be free to edit here? (please see below for my comment)
What, if anything, could or should be done to prevent the sort of abuse that led Amalthea to make that unblock decision? Are we interested in finding ways of dealing better and more robustly with this sort of thing?

To be clear: I'm not criticising, in any way, anyone who tried, or anything that was done, to contain this problem – it seems to have been just a mass of work for a lot of people. I'm merely asking for comment. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hathorn is still violating copyrights and denying that there is a problem – please see my comments here and at Talk:Susan Pamerleau; also this edit. Yes, the copyvio in that article is not very extensive; nor is it negligible. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My impression from reading that unblock reason is it happened because the block didn't stop the copyvios, instead causing block evasion that a) negates the effectiveness of the block and b) makes it harder to track the problem edits. Basically, "The block merely makes it harder to track the copyvios since they still happen through sockpuppets, but it doesn't stop them". Imma think on this.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the unblock is that no one has been monitoring the user, and no one should be expected to have to monitor the user, checking their every edit to make sure it's copyright compliant. This is beyond the scope of what we can expect of our volunteers, even those who are interested in helping with copyright clean-up. If someone is violating the terms of use, which includes a statement that we are obliged to engage in "Lawful Behavior – You do not violate copyright or other laws", then they should be blocked. Perhaps a checkuser could monitor for socks and block them as they appear. Hopefully the editor would quit socking at some point if all their socks were blocked and all their edits were reverted. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question- What proportion of their edits, rough percentage wise, might be considered copy vios? Blackmane (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had spot-checked his edits in the months after the unblock, but only for a while, of course :/
Considering all circumstances I remain convinced that the unblock was the right move to make, even though the comparison from Talk:Susan Pamerleau shows that the problems and fundamental misconceptions from back then still exist two years later.
If there are questions I should answer I'll do my best.
Amalthea 22:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly leaning toward reblocking him indefinitely. We shouldn't reward a socker by unblocking him! Sure, unblocking a helpful-but-socking user might occasionally be beneficial, but it would be absurd to say "You're unstoppable with your socking and copyright-infringing, so we give up and unblock you", and I don't see a big difference between that and the reason for unblocking him. Users who repeatedly flout our policies need to be shown the door, and especially in cases of recidivism after the removal of an indefinite block: get indeffed for a good reason, get unblocked, and start up the bad behavior — why should we believe anything you say? Why shouldn't we just revert, block, ignore you? Amalthea, I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong and that you're right. Would you mind giving us more extensive reasons and trying to convince me that the unblock was the right move to make? Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate very much Justlettersandnumbers trying to drive this towards a solution (we need one), I also feel the need to speak up to explain the situation that Amalthea was dealing with here. :) The unblock was not intended as a reward, I know; it was simply an end-of-the-rope attempt to find a solution when traditional measures demonstrably weren't working. Transparency was chosen in preference to what we were then dealing with. Keeping up with Billy's socks was a massive time-consumer, and as best as I remember I spent quite a bit of time and energy on RBI myself. (I use it heavily when dealing with block evading serial copyright infringers, even now.) I would have much rather Amalthea had produced a magic wand and found a way to stop the issue, but can't fault him for failing to do so. No more could I. :( At the time Billy was unblocked, his socks were not demonstrating the copyvio pattern he had previously shown in the swathe of articles I spot-checked, but it's not possible to say definitely they weren't happening. Unfortunately, it's massively time consuming to check for those, and material may be missed. Additionally, I have no doubt there are many socks that were never identified.

Basically, I think Amalthea's decision - while not the solution one would hope for - was pragmatic. We could not effectively block him, and his edits were likely to escape review. Making them transparent meant the ability to at least review them, while the fragmented accounts and IPs he was using previously were difficult to review at all. Given that years after his initial block, he still doesn't get it - and by his note on Talk:Susan Pamerleau doesn't really seem to even understand the issue - I think Billy remains a problem. But if he is indefinitely blocked again, I think it will require some creativity to enforce it, since it's hard to know how technical measures could be brought to bear here. I don't think one or two people trying to WP:RBI can make a difference. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look over the SPI page and grasp the enormity of the problem. I'd really like to see what @Billy Hathorn: has to say about this and, if it's not a satisfactory explanation, don't see why a site ban with the application of the nuclear option should not be considered. If one cannot trust all, then one must suspect all. Blackmane (talk) 02:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

with respect to detecting the contributions if he resumes socking, his ordinary choice of subject and manner of writing is highly distinctive. We may not be able to block him no matter what he may turn his hand to, but we can block him in this field at least. The material his socks added was on the customary subject in the customary manner. I'm not ay sure an unblock such as the one in question here is ever justified: I tend to think not, but I don't want to rule out there might be some justified case. If it ever is done in such a case, I think it would warrant prior discussion. For this case, the detectability of the contributions forces me to the conclusion that it was an unblock that should not have been done, even on the basis of the evidence at the time, not just because of the subsequent copyvios. Even the best active admin make errors. But if it is not agreed that an unblock in such circumstances takes great caution and discussion, we will need a policy saying so. MRG? Amalthea? DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a couple of years and memory is fallible, but I think it's worth noting that this situation was a bit more complex than "This isn't working; let's just let him disrupt under his main account so we can see it." (Although transparency was a major factor.) Blocking Billy in the first place was the right call. He repeatedly violated various policies related to content and was absolutely unwilling to change his editing behaviors no matter who called him on it or how it was explained. But from a copyright standpoint, Billy was not one of those people who copy-pastes wholesale from sources that I recall; his taking often may not rise to substantial similarity (although only a judge could make that determination). It's more a matter of close paraphrasing brief runs from his sources in a manner that is clearly plagiarism as Wikipedia defines it and as most Western academicans would. This kind of writing does constitute a "copyvio" as a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy, because we require that, except for clearly marked quotations, creative content from your sources be written in your own words (oversimplifying, but basically true). However, a spot-check prior to the unblocking had not shown copying issues in his sock contributions, and he was not (as best as I recall) violating BLP anymore by citing himself or unreliable blogs.

Dealing with his socks, especially socks who might otherwise not be violating policy, was disruptive in itself. The nuclear option has collateral damage beyond the time it requires for a user to go through and rollback, especially the longer it takes you to discover the sock. Other contributors waste their time polishing the work of banned editors and are not particularly happy when you roll back an article to an earlier state without at least being able to demonstrate that the content itself was wrong. Demonstrating that the content itself is wrong is essentially compressing the time it takes to do a CCI. (As an aside, Billy's CCI has been edited a grand total of 31 times in the four years it has been opened. Conducting CCIs is hard. Conducting it on an editor like this one? Doubly hard.) Doing this with dozens of socks and IPs - especially where the issues that led to the original block did not then seem to be a factor - was disrupting the project in itself.

After his unblock, both Amalthea and I reviewed Billy's contributions for a time. (See User_talk:Billy_Hathorn/Archive_20#Copyright_issue for one issue found as I was still following him four months after the unblock - it proved to be an old issue reinstated; the next section demonstrates Amalthea's continued engagement as well.) This was not intended to be a throwing in the towel, but another approach to prevent disruption. It wasn't the best solution and quite probably not the right solution. But it was also not a unilateral overthrow of a community ban; it was a single admin choosing to unblock a user, as we do all the time. And it was done with caution.

I don't have much more time right now, but I will note that as I recall there is another potential way to deal with this kind of thing that was not thought of at the time. I can't remember this guy's name at the moment, but we dealt with a person who was copy-pasting content into, I think, sports article where we used a bot to blank or revert his content and place a template asking people who wanted to restore it review it for copy-pasting and annotate their findings on a list. Something like that might be a way to work with cases like this - where the person who is following the trail of a blocked serial copyright infringer doesn't have to manually review and revert each edit and the community can be mobilized in assisting. User:MER-C, do you remember that case? I'll look for it later if nobody else does. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post family lunch outing, I have remembered: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo, with the considerable assistance of User:Uncle G. This was an extreme case, and I wouldn't really want to use it for every CCI case, but for serial copyright infringing sock puppeteers, it might be the way to go. It also, honestly, might be judiciously used to diminish some of the mounting backlog at WP:CCI. Having a couple of people who whittle away at this monumental task is misusing their time. Perhaps if violations exceed a certain threshold, it's an alternative we should consider. (User:Wizardman, User:Diannaa - thoughts on that idea? Is it crazy, or something we might want to propose more formally?) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the nuclear option is appropriate whenever there is sockpuppetry involved. MER-C 19:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing all their contribs will be reverted might serve to deter the violator from socking. This is why I typically remove all sock contribs, regardless of their value. Bot removal of edits might be a worthwhile option for the cases that are otherwise unsolvable due to sources not being provided, or the sources being inaccessible and uncheckable. FYI, the backlog currently contains 152 cases and 72,239+ articles, up from 142 cases and 71,258+ articles on this same date a year ago (14 cases were closed, but 24 new cases were added, and at least one case was substantially expanded). -- Diannaa (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Might I also suggest that the foundation should contract some paid employees to work on copyright clean-up? The current system of expecting volunteers to clean up over 150 CCI cases containing 72,000 articles and hundreds of thousands of diffs is obviously not realistic, as the backlog continues to grow. Some cases have been sitting unexamined for over five years. --Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult for me to know which account to use to answer this, Diannaa. :) This is volunteer mode, and I haven't consulted anyone else about this, but basically my understanding has always been that the Foundation can't do this. There's a critical separation between being an online service provider and a content provider. The laws that govern the former are quite different from those govern the latter, as the former has safe harbors that the latter does not receive. If we lost that safe harbor, it has always been my belief that the entire model of the movement would have to change, as individual editors would no longer be solely legally responsible for laws they violate on our sites. We go well and above legal requirements in addressing copyright concerns on Wikipedia, and obviously I'm for that, since I have spent so much time doing it. :) But I fear that losing OCILLA would of necessity make open-editing obsolete. Again, this is my opinion as a volunteer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Timothy Dwight Hobart article is now a one-paragraph shell. The article was not a copyright violation. Someone claimed there was too much following closely from tshaonline. That material was corrected months ago. Yet the article was gutted to one paragraph will all the references for that paragraph. It began on the board in 2008.

The Susan Pamerleau article was said to have followed too closely from her campaign website. This too was corrected: there were three claims, very minor, all further scrambled. Sheriff Pamerleau's PR person gave permission to lift the copyright from her campaign site, but administrators here said the permission is invalid. At any rate, there is no copyright violation. One should read the article entirely. It was on a temporary page if one can find it. Thank you. Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indef. I believe action(s) executed WRT this situation were made in an honest effort to correctly address the issue. The admin(s) previously involved have my full confidence. Tiderolls 06:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef. To do otherwise would tell users (especially the sneaky-disruption type, such as massive copyvioes) that if they sock enough, we will unblock them. Enforce, as needed, with rangeblocks, checkuser checks on accounts, and possibly (if applicable) edit filters. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef or ban, whichever has more support per Old Misheu, and the editor's completely unconvincing denial above. BMK (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about nuking from orbit, though. BMK (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indef, unquestionably. Unblocking someone because they're using sockpuppets seems like it was a pretty bad idea -- I don't see how it made him easier to catch, since nothing stopped him from using a sock to post all his copyvios while using the original account for normal editing. Additionally, even if keeping up with his socks is a lot of work, it is work that is necessary as long as he's still posting copyvios (and as far as I can tell, he never even agreed to stop.) Banning a sock also makes it easier to remove possible copyvios, because it means that everything he posted with that sock can be summarily reverted as an edit by a banned user, without having to determine exactly what the copyvio is -- it shifts the burden of proof for keeping or reinstating one of his edits on to whoever wants to keep it (or, at least, it requires that an editor in good standing have enough confidence in the edit to be willing to accept responsibility for it), which, I think, is a reasonable thing to do when someone has enough of a history of copyvios to get permanently banned. --Aquillion (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indef: It may well take a lot of time to enforce against socks, but it undoubtedly also takes a lot of time to monitor and correct the significant copyright violations. Given that both paths are time consuming, a block seems preferable as it shows that Wikipedia is actually willing to enforce its own policies. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, he should not only be banned, but I wonder if there's a way to nuke his edits. He's made so many that it would be very difficult to do and it's not something I would normally condone, but he's been so disruptive for so long that his edits will be impossible to clean up otherwise. I also did a cursory check on the Hobart article mentioned, and if he seriously thinks that wasn't copyvio then an indef block and ban is the only solution. MRG notes above that we've nuked once before, and it may in fact be the only solution. Wizardman 20:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support ban and the nuclear option in this case. Miniapolis 22:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support ban and nuking per Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors. MER-C 10:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why this is not at ANI. Infinite ban against and usage of Special:Nuke on this user. Repeated, long-time copyright issues.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Müdigkeit, I brought this here rather than to ANI because (a) it isn't an incident but a long-term problem and (b) it's an (un)block review, as mentioned under "Issues appropriate for this page" in the instructions above. If I was wrong I apologise. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Müdigkeit, I think it's probably not just about this user but about this kind of issue, which happens to have a specific case at its core. The two are intertwined. I think this is probably the right place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I know. Thanks for the answers.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, ANI is for "incidents". AN is usually for slightly bigger fish frying like site bans, etc. There is some overlap between the two but if you hang out here for a while, you'll see that ANI is a bit more dynamic than AN. Blackmane (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to go for an indef in this case, but are we seriously going to nuke, which means delete every article he's created? Surely a solution like in the Darius Dhlomo case where pages were blanked until they were reviewed would be better. Jenks24 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Jenks24. Nuking his subsequent sock edits is one thing, but the nuke solution now could be quite damaging. For context (this link will expire), he has contributed significantly in his editing career under this account to over 9,000 articles. Since his unblocking, over 4,500. I do not know (as was asked above) what percentage of these will be problems, but I suspect that there will be many which are not. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nuking all of BH's edits would do harm. I have other problems with some of his recent article creations. Namely they being totally sourced via paid newspaper obituaries. Those type of obituaries fail WP:RS when it comes to most details about a person's life and IMHO shouldn't be the only source for establishing someone's notability....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Darius Dhlomo solution is the current plan, and is what I support. Anything substantial added by any new sockpuppets will be removed indiscriminately. MER-C 14:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ban, automatically delete any new potentially-copyright edits, have human users filter through the user's past edits. We can't nuke all his previous edits, as he may very well have made a non-copyrightable change to a featured article, for example. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Jenks24. Nuking could create a lot more work for us, imo. Connormah (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suppport ban. Also support whatever nuclear option gains consensus, whether it be a tactical nuke or something more like Tsar Bomba. Blackmane (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping thread for 30 days. Diannaa (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Sims Van Zile

Resolved

– Attributed on En WP, note on the talk pages of both projects, explanation to user who transwikiied the content without requisite attribution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Edward Sims Van Zile was created by copy and pasting the article I created in my userspace User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Edward Sims Van Zile into mainspace by another editor without proper attribution. Can someone merge the edit histories so that I show up with the creation of the article? Then I can delete my userspace version. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not copied from your sandbox, but from Simple English Wikipedia; it reflects material authored by people other than you, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). I will make sure proper attribution to the Simple English Wikipedia is supplied and speak to the user about how this is done. Your sandbox version is not needed, as you are attributed for your contributions on Simple. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general question about transwikied articles. When I copy sections of one en.wiki article to another one, I always add the "copied" template, which puts up a banner saying that the source article now serves as attribution for the receiving article and should not be deleted. However, we have no authority over other wikis, so we have no way of ensuring that the source article -- in the current case on simple.wiki -- is deleted, which would leave our article unattributed, which I believe is a copyright problem for us. How do we deal with this? BMK (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, I'd never really thought about it. I suppose the edits could be imported if necessary? Jenks24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can also do a complete list of all authors on the talk page. As long as it's pointed to in edit summary, it meets all requirements for attribution in accordance with our Terms of Use §7(b)(iii). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moonriddengirl: I think that you are misreading the terms of use. The point you referred to says that attribution may be given "Through a list of all authors". Special:Book (the only place I'm aware of where a list of authors is given in list form) says "Contributors: Moonriddengirl, BG19bot, TDKR Chicago 101 and KasparBot". This list is incomplete (Simple Wikipedia has other contributors), so it is not a list of the kind referred to in the terms of use.

The terms of use lists two alternative ways to provide attribution:

"Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed". Text was contributed to two different places (Edward Sims Van Zile and simple:Edward Sims Van Zile), but Special:Book only links to one of those places (the one on English Wikipedia). This method is obviously not used either.
"Through hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy that is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on the Project website". One could maybe say that Edward Sims Van Zile is an "alternative, stable online copy" of simple:Edward Sims Van Zile. However, it does not seem to "credit the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on the Project website" as the credit information is two clicks away (click on "view history" and go through all edit summaries and click on a link in one of the edit summaries). On Simple English Wikipedia, the credit information is only one click away (click on "view history"). It is also debatable whether the "alternative, stable online copy" "confirms with the license".

Attribution is a complex thing and it is easy to make a mistake somewhere. You might have seen this discussion on Commons where an external reuser of a picture got an invoice from a Commons uploader because he had used a thumbnail downloaded from Commons instead of using the original version of the file. EXIF data (which may contain attribution information) is stripped by Mediawiki when thumbnails are generated. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2, I don't believe I am - I believe it pretty clearly permits a list of authors - but I think special book download is problematic in a number of ways, including that it does nothing to accommodate Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, since it does not provide the edit summary that includes attribution. If we rely on attribution from Special:Books, nobody can ever copy substantial content from another Wikipedia page, ever. Only the original contributor could do so. (Unless we link to the source article on the page itself, with a url.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Nope, no chance: for whatever reason that I don't understand, import only works with a few other wikis, and simple: isn't one of them. Perhaps it would simply work to dump a list of authors into the talk page and add a link to it? Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question asked out of ignorance: is there any way to transclude the simple article's history to our talk page? Or perhaps cutting-and-pasting the history up to the point of the transwiking would be sufficient, even though there would be no links to each contributors edit? BMK (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting & pasting works fine. Per my link above, a list of authors is sufficient, even without links to each contributor's edit. Every editor agrees to this when they hit save. :) We used to do this routinely with copyright cleanup, before the days of rev deletion. In the case of this particular article, I did the same thing there that we do on local wiki articles - put a note on the talk page explaining why the history needs to be retained. But this is a cross-article issue, and it would be great if we could do this - and especially if we had some way to automate this. Then we'd never have to worry about deletion anywhere. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I *could* do an import from the Simple English Wikipedia because I can do importupload on this wiki, but I don't really like doing imports in cases like this, because they mess up people's contributions pages. Graham87 07:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Graham87: What do you mean with 'messing up people's contributions pages'? In the past, edits could be assigned to the wrong user when the same user name belonged to different users on different projects, but SUL finalisation should have solved this problem when pages are imported from other Wikimedia projects. Is there something else which may be messed up? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: People have edits that they made in one wiki on their contributions page of another. But the size of the Simple English Wikipedia page is very different to that of the English one; was a straight copy really involved? Graham87 08:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Caplan

The article has since been deleted; and as Finlay pointed out, Wikipedia really has no control over mirror sites (or advertisements featured on them). (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Tom Caplan Wiki page seems to have been hacked and shows inappropriate material when the page comes up. The page itself is then frozen. I don't know much about Wiki editing etc but the page is set for deletions. It seems it was taken over by someone maliciously. Can you help with this svp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Needs-abc (talk • contribs) 12:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tom Caplan was deleted several days ago as a result of this discussion. So that's all in order. That's not "inappropriate material", nor has it been "hacked". -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 12:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to others: I've had a discussion with Needs-abc on his user talk page. It seems that, with the original Wikipedia deleted, some Google searches for "Tom Caplan Wiki" end up at a mirror site, which serves adult ads. All I can suggest is for the subject to take the matter up with the mirror and with Google, although I don't know how responsive either is likely to prove. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

How about that kind of draft

Not exactly sure what the question was, but the draft was speedied by Salvidrim. (non-admin closure) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 02:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Draft:The Silent Heroes--Musamies (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's special about it? (I just G7'ed as a blanked-by-author). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

SPA violating BLP

Dewanifacts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to exist for the sole purpose of inserting the name of the person totally acquitted of Murder of Anni Dewani into the article as many times as possible. NE Ent 15:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absurd allegation made by someone who not only does not know what they are talking about, but on their own admission, does not have the time to read up and check before making such a scurrilous accusation against me. NE Ent posted for the first time today on the Talk page of this article stating "Collect -- rip it all out. Unfortunately I have to go real life and don't have time to do it myself.". It appears that NE Ent spent about 25 seconds analysing my contributions and decided that rather than read up before attacking, he/she would simply make this ridiculous accusation and throw my name in the mud.

If anyone takes the time to read the edits that I have made and the discussions that I have had on the aformentioned Talk Page over the last few months, they will see that far from impinging on the rights of the acquitted person in this case (Shrien Dewani), I have been a staunch defender of that person's right to a fair and just representation here on Wikipedia in line with WP:BLP. I have abided by the rules and spirit of Wikipedia and have endeavoured to engage in constructive, collaborative debate to script a better Article. I expect that if you asked for the view of senior respected editors such as Robert McClenon they will attest to the fact that these allegations are unfair and not based in reality and that I have made valid and helpful contributions.

Quite aside from everything mentioned above, There are two rather cogent facts that NE Ent seems to have ignored. (i). The far majority of the mentions of Shrien Dewani's name have been added by other people - not me. (ii) I actually am in agreement with those who suggest that his name is mentioned too much and that lots of mentions can and should be excised from the article as they are no longer relevant. I have proposed discussion to this effect on the Talk page of the article (See this for yourself on the Talk page - section 34. "Suggestions to improve neutrality of the article")

All up - a thoroughly meritless accusation. Dewanifacts (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are an admitted "staunch defender of that person's right to a fair and just representation here on Wikipedia", it makes sense to examine your contributions to see if they cross the boundary of POV editing and to determine if you are a single-purpose account with a possible conflict of interest (as hinted at by your account name). When you set out on the quest you have given yourself, you should not be surprised when such questions are raised. BMK (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contribution list, there's no doubt whatsoever that you are a SPA, since you have not edited any article or talk page other than Murder of Anni Dewani and its talk page, to which you have 214 combined edits, out of your total of 278. [2]. As for "abid[ing] by the rules and spirit of Wikipedia", well, I'm the last person to look down on someone who's been blocked for edit warring, but in fact you have been blocked twice for just that in the 2 months you've been editing, so your claim is not really accurate.

In general, Wikipedia is not improved by editors with your profile, who instead attempt to put a bias in place, so it's perfectly acceptable for NE Ent to bring you up as a subject for scrutiny. BMK (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given their extremely tight editing focus, I think it would be a good idea for Dewanifacts to say, in this thread, whether they have any conflict of interest with regard to Shrien Dewani. Are they in any way connected to this person or their family (in which case the restrictions in the COI policy should come into effect), or are they being paid for their editing (in which case they also need to comply with the requirements of WP:TOU regarding paid editing). BMK (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background, history, comments

Executive Summary: Dismiss this thread as a bad filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I mostly agree with User:Dewanifacts and completely disagree with User:NE Ent, whose hasty entry here is very un-ent-like. (For the benefit of those unfamiliar with Lord of the Rings, ents are large, patient, long-lived humanoids, part tree but sentient, slow to anger, who dislike the “hastiness” of mortals.) NE Ent’s characterization of User:Dewanifacts as a single purpose account is correct, but his assessment of the role of Dewanifacts in the dispute over Murder of Anni Dewani is very far off the mark. Dewanifacts is what I will call a Truth and Justice Warrior, not at all the same as a Social Justice Warrior (SJW). SJWs seek to impose a POV on Wikipedia to advance a particular concept of social justice. Dewanifacts is an SPA who is very committed to neutral point of view and to establishing verified facts from reliable sources in a particular case that has been a terrible miscarriage of justice until recently (until the acquittal of Shrien Dewani).

My experience with this case began on 14 August 2015 when a dispute was brought to the dispute resolution noticeboard and I agreed to act as volunteer moderator (informal mediator). At the time, the article was page-protected for the first time. The stated issue was whether a particular source was biased and should be discounted or removed. However, the alleged bias was basically a criticism of the case against Shrien Dewani. (That is, the criticism was consistent with the fact that the case against him collapsed as being based on the testimony of lying criminals.) One editor was pushing strongly for the removal of material implying that the case against Shrien Dewani was bad, because they were insisting that it was a proved fact that the murder was a murder-for-hire. (It is true that previous court findings had referred to murder for hire, but that finding was based on false pleas.) It was very much a WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY dispute. The editor who was the “one” was not Dewanifacts. Dewanifacts was one of the editors who was trying to clean up the article to reflect the collapse of the murder-for-hire view. (The other editor, who was pushing the anti-Shrien-Dewani agenda, has not edited in the past ten days or so.) I was trying to work with the parties to develop an RFC, the only way that I saw to resolve the sourcing dispute. I had asked the parties to mediation not to edit the article after it came off page protect. However, as soon as the article came off page protection, parties began edit-warring again, and I had to fail the mediation. My subsequent involvement has been one of trying to maintain WP:NPOV, including the fact that a particular living person has been formally acquitted (because the case was based on lies by criminals). Although User:Dewanifacts is an SPA, they are the rare case of an SPA who is working to improve the encyclopedia.

On 17 September User:Collect, not one of the previous editors, made massive cuts to the article, basically eliminating the entire description of the trial of Shrien Dewani except for one clause in the lede. (By removing all description of the trial from the body of the article, this left the lede making a statement not substantiated by the body, contrary to proper article structure.) This was reverted, and the article was then page-protected a second time, on 17 September, and came off page-protection on 17 October. While I agree that the description of the proceedings against Shrien Dewani were far too long, I disagreed with eliminating the entire account. The case is notable not so much because a tourist was murdered in South Africa, but because it was a massive miscarriage of justice by the South African police and government.

I disagree with the complaint by User:NE Ent against Dewanifacts, who is an SPA but who is an SPA for accuracy in a specific case where there has been injustice. The interpretation of the biographies of living persons policy by User:Collect (who has a long history of inconsistent application of BLP, sometimes very loose, sometimes absurdly rigid) that the acquittal of an individual should be treated as if the trial never happened is extreme and eccentric.

I think that every editor agrees that the number of mentions of Shrien Dewani in the long text of the article was excessive, and that it needed drastic trimming. The problem is that the complete excision of all mention of the trial and acquittal, which is much of why the case is notable, is inappropriate. A much shorter description of the trial, concluding that the case was dismissed as based on lies, is not only appropriate but necessary. The current shortened version is not so much a whitewash of Shrien Dewani, who needs no whitewashing because he is innocent, as a whitewash of a miscarriage of justice.

Since this thread appears to be a request for administrative action against Dewanifacts, by an editor User:NE Ent who is acting hastily and in accordance with an eccentric interpretation of BLP, I suggest that this thread be closed. There is a Request for Comments pending at Murder of Anni Dewani, a better way to resolve a content dispute (whether or not the RFC is neutrally worded).

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because Dewanifacts is, as you admit, clearly a SPA, I think it's imperative that we get a statement from them dealing with the questions I asked above: do they have a conflict of interest, and are they a paid editor? BMK (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert McClenon for taking the time to explain all that. Hi BMK, there is already a section on the Talk page of the article (Section 24: "COI Tag") where I have declared my position and this has all been discussed, however you are right in saying that should have made it clear in my response to this allegation. I can catagorically state that I have no link whatsoever to the Dewani or Hindocha families, nor anyone who knows or represents the Dewanis or Hindocha families, nor am I paid by anyone for my interest or online representations in this case. I represent an independant website dedicated to finding and uncovering the truth about what happened to Anni Dewani. We have no agenda other than seeking the truth and achieving true justice for Anni Dewani. This agenda is clearly stated on our website - https://dewanifacts.wordpress.com/our-agenda/. Thanks Dewanifacts (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for declaring your conflict of interest. Since you "represent an independant website dedicated to finding and uncovering the truth about what happened to Anni Dewani", I am going to insist that you cease editing the article directly, and, per the requirements of WP:COI, make suggestions on the talk page which will be put in effect by non-conflicted editors if they agree with them. No person can serve two masters, and you cannot serve the WP:NPOV requirements of Wikipedia while at the same time "seeking the truth and achieving true justice for Anni Dewani". Wikipedia does not deal with "truth", per se, we deal only with what can be verified through the use of reliable sources. Given your statement, I am telling you here that I, a totally uninvolved editor, will delete any future edit you make directly to the article, but will (of course) not stand in the way of other editore putting your suggested edits into effect. BMK (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BMK I have read through WP:COI and I cannot see anything that gives you the power to "insist" on me not editing the article. In fact it seems like you are acting contradictory to the Wikipedia "assume good faith" doctrine. Who or what gives you the authority to ban me from editing the article? Please can you clarify this so that this is 100% transparent and I am satisfied that you have the power to make such a directive. Thanks. Dewanifacts (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't think your rash judgement is helpful, given you haven't even read the article in the first place, as you state here. Being ignorant about a situation and uninvolved are not the same thing. One of those two clearly does not help in building an encyclopedia. I would suggest exercising caution and carefully examining the facts before declaring an intention to edit-war. Samsara 08:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is (I assume) addressed toward BMK and I concur with the sentiment expressed by Samsara. Were I to be editing in a disruptive manner, I would understand a hard line approach such as the one displayed by BMK, however I think that good faith should be assumed unless and until there is cause for concern. The Talk page of the article is testament to the fact that I am committed to the collaborative process and have been a strong advocate for discussing changes on the Talk page and only making edits once consensus has been reached, or no opposition voiced. In practice, I don't have that much of an issue with not making edits, however I don't like bullies and people on power trips and I would like BMKto either show who gave him the power to make such a directive, or retract it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewanifacts (talk • contribs) 09:57, 26 October 2015

Dewanifacts (talk · contribs) is an SPI with a user name that conveys their agenda, and they have a website dedicated to fighting the good fight, and now they are at Wikipedia to make sure the world is told the truth. Those are very large facts which BMK correctly identifies as red flags needing attention—if you have studied the topic, and Dewanifacts' edits, and the dewanifacts website, you might help by explaining how Dewanifacts is assisting. Johnuniq (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnuniq, can you clarify your last sentence please. I'm not quite sure who you are suggesting should be doing the explaining..... Dewanifacts (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it is you, Dewanifacts. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to explain. As Johnuniq points out, I am a SPA and I have never pretended to be anything else. I chose a name that made this bleedingly obvious. I am exceptionally well studied in the facts and nuances of this complicated saga and am in a good position to help guide the article. If you look at my edits you will see that they are neutral, avoid conjecture and only present neutral, reliably sourced facts that can be substantiated in their entirety. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pinging me. I see you know how to spread jargon to obscure the fact that you are using Wikipedia as part of your campaign. Perhaps you are a great editor, but someone with such a blatant agenda needs to take a more cautious approach—stop trying to brush off very reasonable concerns with jargon; instead, restrict your activities to infrequent suggestions on the article talk page to highlight any perceived problems. Johnuniq (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is a self-admitted SPA who only focuses on the Anni Dewani issue even allowed to operate under the handle "Dewanifacts"? Doc talk 11:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point; why would I not be "allowed" to? What rule have I broken? Dewanifacts (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question - and note that I here object to being accused of somehow being inconsistent on WP:BLP - my position is consistent as best I am able, and I have never argued for using any "loose" requirements on BLPs. Period. I find that a person who has a specific POV on the case at hand, as the two editors clearly do represent, should not be the ones editing the material. Once the request to re-open the inquest was denied, I suggest the playing field had changed substantially. The material which I just removed was not the "major edit" I am accused of - and I invite those who make or iterate that accusation to recant. [3]. With warm regards, and trusting that those who accuse me of doing what I damn well do not do will note that fact. BTW, I find the net effect of the material with its more than three dozen iterations of Dewani's full name does more to confuse readers about his "guilt" than my edits which used the word "husband" and left material containing the name fully visible in the footnotes. Collect (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made the major edit on 17th September, after which it was reversed alongside pleas to discuss all changes on the Talk page. The article was locked for a month and Darouet then made a similar major edit on 22nd October, with you finishing his handiwork a few hours later by excising every single mention of Shrien Dewani's name from the article, under the false guise that its inclusion was a BLP violation. As mentioned elsewhere, the number of name mentions is irrelevant. What matters is the context. Amanda Knox's name is mentioned six dozen times in the article on Meredith Kercher's murder, so if your numbers game has any relevance then Dewani is actually mentioned comparatively much fewer times and your outrage should be directed toward other Wikipedia crime articles such as the one I've just mentioned.Dewanifacts (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The progression of the discussion on this noticeboard is somewhat alarming. It began with a wholly unfounded allegation against me, which has been shown to be misguided and unfair. That should be the end of the matter. I am merely a person who took an interest in this case largely because it was misreported and misrepresented in the media, and set up a wordpress site in conjunction with a few others, to put the facts forward in a neutral non biased fashion. I am aware of what Wikipedia is and is not here to achieve and I do my damndest to stay within the guidelines and to participate in the true spirit of Wikipedia. I will declare again that I have no issue with discussing edits on the Talk page first and I don't really care whether it is me or someone else who enacts the agreed edits, however I won't be bullied by wikipedia editors on power trips who think they can talk down to me and give directives and declare their intent to edit war with me. Dewanifacts (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, excessive length in any article where the "possible guilt" of a living person is clearly discussed often leaves readers with "there was smoke so there must be a fire" as the implication. In cases if miscarriages, Wikipedia generally deals with the issues in a far more concise manner (vide Richard Jewell where the total amount in any presenting any negative inference about the person is zero, and the praise section is large, and the bombing article is only 13K total, with less than half being about Jewell - leaving no room for any "smoke = fire" misapprehensions by readers) rather than having 30K+ characters about material many would find to support such inferences, and possibly find such to be actually implied by the article. Indeed, the entire article on the murder had reached 71K with about half of the entire article being about Shrien Dewani and his trial - and almost none of that half was about the actual exoneration. So much for me being wrong about WP:BLP - if a person sees one paragraph abut the exoneration, and 6,000 words about the person maybe being guilty, that is UNDUE by any measure. When we have one short paragraph about the exoneration and three dozen mentions of his name - I find that against WP:BLP in esse.

(The lead has all of "Dewani was exonerated, with the Western Cape High Court ruling that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations."

while the lead also has "In his plea bargain agreement, Zola Tongo said that Anni's husband, British national Shrien Dewani of Bristol, had offered R15,000 to have his wife killed.[9][10] Following an application by South African authorities, Senior District Judge Howard Riddle ruled in August 2011 that Shrien Dewani could be extradited to face charges in relation to the murder. The extradition order was approved by Home Secretary Theresa May on 28 September 2011. A High Court ruling of 30 March 2012 put the extradition on hold, based on expert witness opinion of Shrien Dewani's mental health and prospects for recovery.[11] Shrien Dewani continued to state his innocence, and his family described the allegations of Tongo as "totally ludicrous".[12] Following a long legal battle, in January 2014, the English High Court of Justice rejected Shrien Dewani's plea against extradition to South Africa,[13] and he was extradited to South Africa on 7 April 2014 and taken to court on 8 April 2014.[14] The cost of the extradition to British taxpayers was £250,000.[15] Shrien Dewani's trial began on 6 October 2014. On 24 November 2014, after the closure of the prosecution case, counsel for Shrien Dewani argued for the trial to be halted and charges dismissed pursuant to Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, citing a lack of any credible evidence linking Mr Dewani to the crime."

which suggests to me inescapable conclusion that the person named did, indeed, commit the crime. Do you see the difference in space given to a short sentence about exoneration compared to the entire rest of the lead? Collect (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Collect. The lede needs some serious paring down. Everything in bold should go.

In his plea bargain agreement, Zola Tongo said that Anni's husband, British national Shrien Dewani of Bristol, had offered R15,000 to have his wife killed.[9][10] Following an application by South African authorities, Senior District Judge Howard Riddle ruled in August 2011 that Shrien Dewani could be extradited to face charges in relation to the murder. The extradition order was approved by Home Secretary Theresa May on 28 September 2011. A High Court ruling of 30 March 2012 put the extradition on hold, based on expert witness opinion of Shrien Dewani's mental health and prospects for recovery.[11] Shrien Dewani continued to state his innocence, and his family described the allegations of Tongo as "totally ludicrous".[12] Following a long legal battle, in January 2014, the English High Court of Justice rejected Shrien Dewani's plea against extradition to South Africa,[13] and he was extradited to South Africa on 7 April 2014 and taken to court on 8 April 2014.[14] The cost of the extradition to British taxpayers was £250,000.[15]

You will get no arguments from be about removing that information. Save for a single mention, everything else in the article regarding the extradition process should be scrapped. The itemising of Dewani's and Tongo's versions of events should be scrapped (I Added all of that stuff but I now agree that its irrelevant information). The "trial of Shrien Dewani" section should be reinstated to what it was on September 17th, but with the removal of the stuff about his sexuality in the opening paragraph. The rest of that section is probably the most important part of the whole article as it ties everything together and summarises the court's findings in exonerating Dewani and showing up his accusers as a bunch of lying criminals who made up the "murder for hire" story to gain leverage and obtain sentence reductions for giving evidence implicating the innocent Shrien Dewani. Here is the article version as at 17th September - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Anni_Dewani&diff=681484174&oldid=681481459 Dewanifacts (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly -- the rhetorical trick of repeatedly mentioning the "innocent" to imply guilt is as old as Shakespeare: "For Brutus is an honourable man;" NE Ent 00:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: Summary of content and conduct issues

The discussion here is now a combination of content issues and conduct issues. This is a conduct noticeboard, so I will try to identify some of the issues that either should be taken to a content forum, dealt with here, or taken to another conduct forum

First, the discussion of how much of the original material in the lede and in the body about the trial of Shrien Dewani is appropriate is a content issue. Take that to the article talk page, or, with a different set of editors who are all trying to comply with the biography of living persons policy, request a new thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard, or, with a different set of editors, take it to requests for formal mediation. I will not mediate at either mediation forum, because I am no longer neutral.

Second, there has been edit-warring between the too-long and too-short versions of the article and the lede. Stop edit-warring and discuss. Someone should write a much-shortened version, rather than edit-warring and arguing for and against the weird interpretation of WP:BLP taken by User:Collect (who has a long history of inconsistent interpretations of BLP anyway). Edit-warriors should be dealt by draconian application of discretionary sanctions.

Third, Dewanifacts is an SPA. That isn’t a dispute, but there is no rule against being an SPA, and Dewanifacts is an SPA who is committed to a reasonable version of WP:NPOV in a case where there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice.

Fourth, User:Dewanifacts may have a user name requiring administrative attention. Take it there.

Fifth, User:Dewanifacts has been asked whether they have a conflict of interest. I suggest that be taken to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

I don’t see any need to continue this fragmented discussion here. Can some uninvolved admin close it, noting that there are other venues? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, the solution to a "fragmented discussion" in one venue is not to parcel it out to numerous other venues. I suggest it stay here, where all the factors concerning Dewanifacts' bias, COI, SPA-ness, and inappropriate name can be discussed. BMK (talk) 22:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have put neutral pointers to this discussion on WP:COIN, WP:BLPN and WT:Username policy. BMK (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You iterate an inaccurate "fact" about me - I do my damndest to be absolutely consistent with regard to WP:BLP which includes my frequently stated opinion that Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group. I trust this disabuses you of a "fact" which has no actual basis in fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, most of us have been around long enough to realize that's bullshit. Quoting from the Arbitration Committee's finding of fact regarding you - "Collect's article edits are indicative of incorporating a non-neutral point of view... add(ing) poorly sourced negative materials to certain biographies of living persons while removing reliably sourced material from other BLPs". The only consistency about your application of BLPs is that it is governed by whether or not you agree politically with the subject. Cheers, 2600:1000:B017:4A5F:66DC:B0D3:50F:3D95 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:help desk#IP address change

(non-admin closure) Already been answered. BMK (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please reply to my comment at the help desk about my IP address. thanks. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

someone seriously do it-. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spambot attack

We are under attack by IP spam bots from China. Please click on "recent changes" to locate these IPs. I have to get ready for work now, need help here. Thank you, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Elockid got them with a Rangeblock :) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's calmed down for now. Elockid^(BOO!) 14:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check [4], they are back. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi there i found mistake in one article

(non-admin closure) This has been addressed at Talk:Israel#when israel was establish category, which is the appropriate venue for content discussions. clpo13_(talk) 20:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

on this article israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel on the category it saying that israel was establish in 1948 but the truth is that israel was establish in 1 may 1949 since there was an independent war in the middle she was only declared in that year please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.165.130 (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enfranchising voters in arbcom elections

I would request that this section be closed by at least one uninvolved admin approximately seven days from now.

I recently started a discussion on my user talk page about low arbcom voter turnout, which became a greater concern to me after stumbling across multiple content editors (including one with over 75k edits to ENWP who was unaware they were eligible to vote.) In privately solicited feedback, there was widespread agreement that the normal banners are slightly obtuse to anyone not already deep inside our administrative side, and leave a lot of the eligible electorate unaware they are eligible - an issue of special concern after 2014's votes were only 60% of those of 2013's.

Therefore, I propose, that immediately after the candidate nomination period has ended, a massmessage be sent out to all editors active in the previous three months who meet all criteria to vote for arbcom. I further suggest that the massmessage be sent from a neutrally named secondary account (which I or anyone else can grant +confirmed and +massmessage to in order to carry out the delivery. My currently suggested text for the massmessage is this:

Hi username, Please note you are eligible to vote in the current ArbCom elections as long as you have not already voted in them on a different account and are not evading a block or ban. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, including the ability to impose bans, topic bans, civility restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. You can review the candidates statements and vote here if you wish to and haven't done so already. <sig here>

(except, with all relevant wikilinks filled in.)

Any thoughts? In a time when we've had greatly declining voter turnout (no other editor metric fell as greatly as arbcom turnout,) it certainly seems in the best interests of the encyclopedia to inform all recently active users who are eligible to vote by the already established voting requirements that they are eligible to vote for arbcom, along with a brief description of what arbcom is (which I stole from one of their pages,) and a brief description of some of the actions arbcom can take. I don't think it's in our best interests to have only a tiny fraction of the eligible electorate be aware they are even eligible to vote (let alone what for,) and know a lot of eligible voters who would take the time to educate themselves about the candidates and vote according to their interests but who are (or were) unaware they were eligible to vote. I've been told that the necessary list should be easily generatable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support - as proposer, with reasoning above. This is or something very similar is standard practice among any organization that holds elections with a specified electorate. I am disinclined to go beyond users three months back, because I don't want to wake the long-departed. Chris Troutman's oppose vote seems to miss the fact that arbcom participation has fallen faster than any other editing metric, and that people with editcounts in excess of 50k have been found unaware they were eligible to vote. We declared what our electorate would be, and then declined to let most of the electorate know they were part of it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm at a loss to understand the "oppose" votes, since this might do some good, and is unlikely to have any negative repercussions. BMK (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People can opt out if they don't want to receive voting notifications. This is too important to ignore. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What Ed and BMK and Kevin say. Also, it's free. Drmies (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can't think of how informing editors that they are eligible to vote is a bad thing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz: See below. Apparently there are still people around who see some kind of danger in having a broad electorate. BMK (talk) 23:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - considering how much power ArbCom has over even the average editor, it's important that as many people as possible chime in during votes. A simple "get out the vote" notice is harmless, contrary to the conspiratorial feelings of certain opposers. clpo13_(talk) 23:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in favor of more exposure to Arbcom elections.→StaniStani 23:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support provided the message is (as proposed) sent from a neutral user account - for example from one of the Election Commissioners. A one-off message notifying people of their eligibility to vote is unlikely to be that annoying, and is worth it if it lifts turnout. Some participants here have also highlighted talk of people running tickets to skew the election results in favour of specific viewpoints - a larger pool of voters reduces the success of this tactic, and will help ensure Arbcom is as representative as possible of the entire editor base. And along with more voters we need more candidates. To all those who've contributed to Arbcom process discussions or supported/opposed particular case outcomes this year - time to put your money where your mouth is by putting your name forward. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Only seeing potential upside in this very sound and logical proposal by Kevin Gorman. Strongly Support. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per BMK, and in particular per many of the replies to the opposition. It simply doesn't make sense not to advertise this. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 07:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If, and only if we can target such messages to only go to people who are entitled to vote then I would be OK with this. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This seems reasonable. HiDrNick! 13:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm from a country with compulsory citizen voting & don't get the (mainly) US/UK cringe on increasing Wikipedia voter numbers. (Should add: I'd like to see compulsory ArbCom voting a requirement of being a bureaucrat/admin/clerk/etc.) AnonNep (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a very sensible proposal, consistent with the principles expressed in WP:SOP. The banner site notices are useful, but can be easily overlooked among the other clutter. I agree with Euryalus that the notification should come from the Electoral Commission. While most of the oppose votes below have me wondering what the benefit of carving out a narrower electorate would be, I find that Carrite's comments stand out as unnecessarily accusatory (and inflammatory). - Mr X 14:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in concept but I think a few of the opposers make a fair point when they say this should have been raised during the RfC for this year's election, which has ended. It is a little late to propose this for the upcoming election. Neutron (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I don't see any problems. Canvassing concerns don't sound convincing to me. Spam concerns either: it is not like ArbCom is constituted every week. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. More participation in elections makes for a healthier community, online or offline. As long as the notifications are delivered neutrally and ecumenically to all eligible voters, this can only be a plus.--Pharos (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Being also from a nation with compulsory voting, despite the obvious contradiction to what others perceive as Democracy, I am often confused how citizens from other democracies are satisfied with a barely sufficient majority of the voting population choosing their governments. Arbcom, which has the largest reach of any body on Wikipedia, is usually elected by not even anything remotely resembling a majority of editors and those who do vote are usually those familiar with the back end of WP, the policies, politics, etc. This sets a dangerous precedent of a very powerful body being elected by a minority. If you want to see how such a body is reflected in democratic society I suggest looking at the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, which isn't a democracy in any way but does have this odd election system. Blackmane (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I see no possible harm from additional communication. My experience is that you need to overcommunicate by a factor of at least ten to make people aware of processes. Arbcom is sufficiently important enough that we should aim to maximize potential voter awareness of the elections. –Grondemar 01:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More voter participation sheds more light on the process. More eyes need to be on Arbcom. Parabolist (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a resident of and registered voter in the United States, I am embarrassed by the turnout in elections. As a registered voter, I just received in the mail a sample ballot for the elections coming up next Tuesday. Is it spam? Is it canvassing? No to both. It's a reminder that gives me details of my option to participate and my potential choices on Election Day. Community participation in Arbcom voting is even more atrocious. Registered Wikipedia editors are registered Arbcom voters, and reaching out to inform these editors on a systematic basic to inform them of their right to vote is something we should be doing as a matter of course. We don't mandate voting, but we should at least be providing a formal nudge to solicit much greater scope in the electoral base. The argument that informing every prospective voter constitutes canvassing borders on the ludicrous. Alansohn (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1) It is good to let eligible people know about elections; and 2) should anyone complain about a message appearing on a User talk page, remind them that: you know, that's where we leave messages for them; there is plenty of room on it, it's not like it is taking up valuable space; the page is not just theirs; and ignore/delete is the way to deal with any such imposition, minor as it is. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Improving voter turnout is always better than the alternative. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems like a harmless idea to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sure, why not? But make it something that respects {{nobots}} please. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Increased participation in the ArbCom elections will mean the new ArbCom will represent a larger sample of Wikipedians. Great idea, Kevin! RO^(talk) 22:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - To a point I am a bit concerned with the spam side of things but at the same time feel some people here may have absolutely no idea they can vote, Meh we need as much participation as possible. –Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The fleeting annoyance of receiving a mass-message is overcome by its utility. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enfranchisement is important. --Tt(^talk/_contribs) 04:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Informing people of the elections is the first step in building a larger and more informed electorate. The Interior (Talk) 17:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a registered voter, I think it is important to solicit feedback from other people. If we send them a mass ping like the one you mentioned above, the turnout would be better instead of editor not being aware of these elections. Editors might not immediately see a general announcement on the other hand. Sam.gov (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. It's important that voters be a large sample of the general Wikipedia population. Far from being canvassing, this proposal would make it harder to canvass; obviously, a message sent to absolutely everyone is not canvassing (it says so explicitly on WP:CANVASS), but more importantly, the more voters from the electorate as a whole we have, the less impact individual efforts to manipulate the vote by targeting some specific subset of the electorate will have. --Aquillion (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose. Not only is there no evidence to back up the assertion that more voters would benefit the results of Wikipedia's elections, low voter turnout is a sign of voter apathy, not disenfranchisement. Long term editors that are unaware of the politics of Wikipedia should stick to editing and not involve themselves with the drama. I support rule by self-selectors; wrong-headed drives like the foolishness being discussed on Kevin Gorman's talk page are almost always the tool of aggrieved parties attempting to overthrow the status quo. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are sufficient notices. I think turnout is dictated by whether there are issues or personalities that bring people to vote. A controversial and recent ArbCom action brings out many who would not vote in a quiet year. I suspect also people would be annoyed by an unrequested message.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chris troutman. Arbcom members should be elected only by those who care about the results, and adding a ton of extra votes in this manner will either produce the same result or cause someone(s) to be elected by people who don't care about the performance of the arbitrator(s) in question, a problem compounded by the chance of a second-tier candidate getting elected when the already-would-have-voted candidates would have known to support someone better. We already publicise the fact that it's time for Arbcom elections, so anyone can vote; it's not like we're doing a registration drive in real life to help people register when they don't what to do to register. Keeping in mind Guy Macon's comment, I'd like to note that a major difference between this and RFA is the manner of voting — the only difference between successful and unsuccessful Arbcom candidacies is the number of votes, without a minimum number being required, so the current election process is successful in electing people; it's not like some real elections (e.g. Bulgarian nuclear power referendum, 2013, to pick one randomly) that fail if the total number of voters is too small. It's very different from RFA, where it can reasonably be argued (correctly or not, I don't know) that adding extra participants will routinely improve an individual's RFA. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comment on Kevin's talkpage. Low participation is a product of people not caring about the result and of people not feeling the effort required is worthwhile (researching candidates is a huge timesink), not a product of unawareness. My personal feeling is that the importance of Arbcom is grossly overstated and most of the missing voters agree and don't care about the result. If one concedes your argument that Arbcom has a genuine discernable effect on the lives of normal editors, then to be frank while I'm sure there will indeed be people who are unaware the elections are on, anyone who manages to miss the glaring watchlist notice which remains in situ for a month, the notification on every significant noticeboard, the discussion on many if not most high-profile talkpages and usertalk pages, and the frantic canvassing efforts by every off-wiki criticism site and mailing list, is someone who is so detached from the day-to-day running of Wikipedia that they shouldn't be involved in decisions. ‑ iridescent 19:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What the cause of low turnout is is really not relevant to the question here, nor the importance or lack of importance of ArbCom. What do you object to about a low-cost method which could possibly get more people to vote? Is it a "mobocracy" thing, or what? I really don't get it. BMK (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the cause is important. Increasing information only makes sense if one of the causes of low participation is lack of information. - Nabla (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Kevin Gorman is one of the moderators of the Gender Gap mailing list (GG-l) hosted by WMF. Membership in this group is carefully controlled, although the public archive is readily visible. He has ALREADY BEEN STIRRING THE POT with a view to getting the couple hundred people of the GG-l organized for bloc voting in the forthcoming ArbCom election. This is clearly a political ploy, an attempt to stack Friendly Spacers onto the committee through selective notification of co-thinkers via official Wikipedia mechanisms. "Vote any way you want (nudge nudge, wink wink)..." Carrite (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carefully controlled? It's an open membership list with open archives. Furthermore, how on earth would a massmessage sent out to all recently active eligible voters be "selective notification"? Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the damning comment you made on Meta on Oct. 21 that I present below. You are organizing for bloc voting to push an ideological faction. Carrite (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: - I would invite you to point out how informing all recently active eligible voters that they are eligible to vote would in any way support bloc voting. I certainly have opinions about the future of ENWP, and am not shy about voicing them in open forums. If I was trying to organize a malicious voting bloc, do you really think I would be doing so by posting on an open mailing list and publicly soliciting feedback about the idea of a universal and neutral mass message to recently active eligible voters, including people I have significant disagreements with - including people I've previously blocked? One of my opinions about the future of ENWP happens to be that eligible voters should know that they are eligible to vote. If I was organizing a malicious voting bloc, do you think I would be doing so via opening a thread on AN openly asking for outside feedback on the appropriateness of the use of my admin tools, when I could've either done so myself without asking anyone (operating on the fairly safe assumption that arbcom is unlikely to desysop someone based off of a use of a neutral massmessage, even one that exceeds the normal number of people massmessaged to,) or simply coordinated a voting bloc via private emails and phonecalls that you wouldn't be able to notice? Please stop with the attacks and stick with reality. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, and I get accused of ABF!!
It's not unusual in the RW for one side or the other to benefit more from getting additional people to the polls. In the US, for instance, the Democrats are usually beneficiaries (especially in the urban areas) and work towards getting more voters, while the Republicans, to generalize, do not, and often engage in tactics which are aimed at discouraging people from voting. But that as it may, unless things escalate to signing up dead people to vote -- as happened with the (Democratic) Daley machine in Chicago in 1960, which helped put JFK into office -- having a higher percentage of the eligible voters turn out is an unalloyed good thing. If Kevin believes that his group will benefit from that -- a charge which you bring no evidence to support -- that's a totally ancillary matter, the solution to which is to get people on your side of the issue to vote.
Similarly, block voting is not a question at issue here. As far as I know it's not Wilki-illegal, and if you're concerned that it may happen, and may bias the election, then I suggest you start doing whatever is necessary to get a consensus to stop it -- but not by discouraging voters from participating, nor by making charges for which you provide no support. BMK (talk) 22:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASSING is a frowned-upon concept pretty much throughout Wikipedia, although I recognize that this is a bit different since, differently from pretty much everything else, it is actually a vote. LjL (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the "voter's guides" for ArbCom elections are an institutionalized form of canvassing, don't you think? They seem to be an exception to the general rule, perhaps because of what you say, that it actually is a vote. BMK (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that, Ken... Kevin Gorman on WikiWomen User Group's page at Meta: "In comparison with the 227 positive votes and the 593 total votes that an arbitrator was actually elected with last year, the GG-L list alone has over 400 members, most of whom are eligible to vote in arbcom elections, many of whom have not done so before, and I'd expect the same to be true of people involved in the WikiWomen's usergroup. Again, I'll be circulating this (or a very similar message) around to multiple other lists, and won't be making direct suggestions or endorsements of candidates on-list, although I may compile a voter candidate guide on-wiki when all nominations are in." [5] — Everybody be sure to vote just however you want, nudge nudge wink wink! Carrite (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the intentions of KG etc., I fail to see how a mass message mail simply saying that "you can vote" can be canvassing. For instance, I was not even aware of ArbCom elections (though I don't usually vote for anything, even in real life), let alone the fact that I am eligible to vote. Presumably, KG has sent (or are going to send) messages over the GGTF mailing list: people who are the targets for canvassing can be more easily reached that way. The message should of course be neutral and to the point. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I think it's a bit dubious to rally votes from an offsite mailing list, sure, but isn't that a reason to support this proposal, not to oppose? This proposal is for an alert that would go to absolutely every eligible voter; doing that would reduce the impact of any attempts to rally votes for a specific cause, since it would dilute their votes in a pool of voters more representative of the wiki as a whole. If someone wants to influence the election via organized block voting, they'd prefer to have as few people outside their bloc as possible voting in order to maximize the impact of their bloc -- sending a general message to absolutely everyone is a way of directly limiting their impact. --Aquillion (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, since this would encourage users unfamiliar with ArbCom to vote. They may unintentionally hurt Wikipedia by voting for less competent candidates. sst✈^discuss 15:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if they are not well-informed about the arbitration process, it is not more likely that they would vote for less competent candidates. There might be another bias (like voting for the candidates who appear at the top of the roster) but there is no connection between being ill-formed and purposely choosing less qualified candidates. They are just as likely to choose qualified candidates. And, for that matter, I'm not sure there has been agreement in the past about which candidates were competent and which were less competent. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that less-informed would be more random-like. That would increase the randomness of the overall choice. It does not imply any bias, quite the opposite, the assumption is that it does not have enough bias towards the 'good' candidates, thus a random fluctuation could elect a lesser candidate - note that randomness does *not* even out. - Nabla (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spam is spam, and spam is rude. WP:MMS says "Mass messages should only be sent to groups of users who are likely to want their attention drawn to the message." The fact that watchlist notices don't attract a lot of voters is a good sign editors are more interested in building the encyclopedia than wiki-politics. Research has shown formal process aren't terribly important to most editors: see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-10-29/Recent_research#informal. NE Ent 02:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it is your opinion that informing people that they are eligible to vote in an election is "spam" and therefore is a bad thing, but expressing opinions in every corner of Wikipedia space without doing much at all to improve the encyclopedia is a good thing.
What an interesting world you live in. BMK (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak Oppose. Probably there are lots of editors unaware of the importance of ArbCom and that they can vote for it. Information is good. One message a year is not a big deal of spam. I could very well vote support, but... there was [| a RfC about the 2015 ArbCom election], it had only 4 proposals and minimal participation. This question and maybe a couple more about how to make the process more attractive to more editors could very well fit there. We shouldn't be discussion on 'random' venues, and starting out from possible unilateral mass mailing decisions. Not-Now, bring it on next year. - Nabla (talk) 21:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, and this isn't a random venue - it's the standard place to review past or future admin actions. We shouldn't put off a proposal for a year because I failed to post it during an earlier RfC if it ends up getting closed as supported here. Regardless of the outcome of this section, I don't see how it could be considered "unilateral." A unilateral implementation of this would be me doing it without asking how others felt about it first. Within the first couple days I've posted this here, it's generated significantly more discussion than the ACE 2015 RFC did. Although I agree with you that it could have very well fit within the context of that RFC, since this is not posted on an obscure messageboard dedicated to a niche topic and has already gathered significant both supports and opposes, I'd suggest that by our standards of consensus, it doesn't particularly matter what forum it's posted in as long as it gets sufficient attention, and the forum is one where it's likely to draw excessive pile-ons from one side or the other. I've noticed someone else has already added it to cent, which was the other place I was intending to drop it today (thank you whoever did so,) and more than welcome suggestions for other appropriate venues. (I might drop a pointer at VPP, but as this isn't a policy shift but an administrative action, still feel this is a better board for it's overall review.) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. People get involved in areas of Wikipedia that interest them, and they should not be spammed regarding areas that don't interest them. There are lots of areas of Wikipedia that get low participation which are more needing of attention than voting in an ArbCom election, and each call on a user's time reduces the effectiveness of the next call, especially when - as in this case - the call is genuinely non-important. ArbCom is for sorting out intractable disputes that the overwhelming majority of users don't encounter and are not interested in. Let those who are familiar with ANI decide who is more appropriate to be on ArbCom, and leave the rest of the editors and gnomes to get on with their work/hobby. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While notifying a bunch of people would probably get a few more people to come and vote, it would also just annoy a lot more people, and I don't see how this addresses the fundamental problems with the ArbCom. The ArbCom is simply a broken institution, damaging to the encyclopedia, and it needs either root and branch reform or abolition. Everyking (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

This is essentially a duplicate of D at Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC except with the "do we need more participants" question mixed in with one particular method of getting more participants. Our time would be better spent helping that RfC to get a good consensus as to whether we need more participants and later, if D passes, helping the stage two RfC to decide what to do about it. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not wrong as a general case, except that I'd point out that this has to arb electorate, rather than the admin electorate, and that if this passes it can easily be put in to place before the voting for the next tranche of arbcom actually starts. That's not to say I disagree that that RFC is needed and I do intend to participate in it as I have time - but I'd notice that D there is easily passing, and if this passes by a similar measure it'll make a difference regarding the arbcom electorate immediately. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a noticeboard. Please don't hold polls here. Legoktm (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This a noticeboard for issues of interest to administrators which routinely reviews the behavior of administrators either before or after it has been conducted. I'm not suggesting a policy change; I'm asking for opinions about the appropriateness of using my own administrator toolset in a way that I am already capable of doing. AN routinely has polls or straw polls related to the proper conduct of administrators, blocks, unblocks, topic bans, etc. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Legotkm, this isn't the proper place for this sort of discussion, especially if it is already ongoing elsewhere. That said, there's some content editor somewhere out there who would make an excellent arbitrator, if engaged in the process. If some bullshit requested move is important enough to want more eyes on it, then why would we not want more eyes on the arbcom election? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignoring the issue of whether it's the proper place. It's not a duplicate of the thing Guy Macon mentions, because he's linking to a proposal to increase the number of voters at RFA, not Arbcom elections. As I noted above, the difference between Arbcom elections and everything else is the nature of the voting: unlike Arbcom elections, extra votes at RFA, pagemoves, etc. can help by providing extra perspectives, opinions, etc., while Arbcom elections are merely picking an option and throwing your ballot into the box. If we had to fill a single Arbcom seat using the normal elections procedure, and two candidates were running, there would be no difference between a 50-20 result and a 5000-2000 result, unless I'm missing something significant. Nyttend (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - This certainly deserves more eyeballs on it than it's gotten so far, but in order to implement logistically for this tranche cannot be a standard RfC, just timewise. While I've been actively thinking about places to draw more attention to this proposal than just this board, most other boards I could post on it on would result in people screaming canvassing. Nyttend: to give you a couple examples of reasons why informing our electorate is a good idea (besides just the fact that it's absolutely standard practice in all groups that *have* electorates) - there are multiple groups of people who are likely to have a direct interest in the outcome and results of arbcom elections who are likely currently unaware that they can vote and are likely to spend the time needed to vote with informed opinions (and for that matter, to make informed questions of candidates.) @Kerry Raymond: is a content editor with far more edits than I have who was unaware that she could vote. @BrianWC: is a professor of law and more or less where the education program got it's inspiration from - and although he does most of his editing anonymously (so his edit count is low,) his grad students are the primary reason why ENWP has mostly comprehensive content about American cyberlaw. @Sarasays: is an employee of the Smithsonian who regularly runs editathons etc and despite her low edit count has a vested interest in the direction arbcom takes, as do many of the people involved in the education program, gender issues (the art+fem editathons etc,) and GLAM issues. Many of these examples include a large cohort of people who are unaware they can vote and who will bring informed new perspectives to arbcom candidate questioning and eventual voting. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've always looked at arbcom elections through the lens of local politics in the US - where every mayor or congressman or whatever got their start by standing at the ballot box thinking about which lever to pull. If one of those 5000 (or even the 2000) realizes that they have the skills and temperment to contribute in some meaningful way to the governance of this project (such as it is), and makes a positive contribution? I'd say it's worth it to pull those people in, even if the other thousands are just tic marks on a tally. It's not necessarily the result of the election that I'm looking at, though that is important as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Precisely. Arbcom has declared their own electorate, and most of that electorate doesn't know they can vote. A massmessage like this would pull in tons of voters whose opinions I disagree with personally, but also tons of voters who have an interest in the direction arbcom goes in, will make informed choices (even if I disagree with them) about candidate selection,) will bring new perspectives to candidate questioning, etc. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - What? "Arbcom has declared their own electorate"? That is so far from reality it brings into question everything else you are saying. The community decided who the electorate was, Arbcom had nothing to do with it. The determination of who is qualified to vote has been exceptionally consistent over many years. The acceptable methods for contacting that electorate has been remarkably consistent over the years; there has always been, in every area and every major "event", a strong distaste for unrequested mass messages. Frankly, I think you're making out like Arbcom is far more important than it actually is. I didn't see you proposing this for the WMF Board elections, and they have a lot more to do with the functioning of the site than Arbcom ever will. Risker (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Whether or not the original voting standards were decided by the community or arbcom is largely irrelevant, what's relevant is that most people who can vote don't know it. You are correct that the method that the electorate is contacted has remained largely unchanged, and hasn't worked well, hence the proposal for change. WMF board elections were held in May, correct? If you look at my contribs, you'll notice I barely edited from December until after the board elections. Severe septic shock with six organ system failure in January meant I was not in a state fit to suggest even a minor intervention in the way board elections were held in May (which would've also been a much more technically challenging message to send to the electorate for board elections.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        No, Kevin, it is *not* irrelevant who decided the voting standards. It is extremely relevant, because you seem to be bashing Arbcom for something that they have nothing to do with, and refusing to accept community decisions. You have not, incidentally, addressed my point that English Wikipedia has consistently, and for any purposes, refused any suggestion that it is appropriate to spam the pages of tens of thousands of users (if not more) when they have not actively chosen to receive such mass messages. Again, I point out that you're giving far, far more importance to Arbcom than it should receive. Arbcom decisions really have very little to do with the running of Wikipedia, and most editors quite justifiably ignore it completely. Risker (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Bashing Arbcom? I haven't bashed arbcom at all here. I've just pointed out that we don't notify members of arbcom's electorate as is considered good governance in pretty much every group that has an electorate (and yes, that includes conduct-oriented panels.) The fact that we don't directly notify them isn't arbcom's fault, I don't anyone on arbcom thought of it. As I said in my original post, until Kerry suggested something very, very close to the idea as I have presented it, I hadn't had it cross my mind. If arbcom bans EC, do you really think that it won't effect the efforts of anyone working with him on content? Or if (when) a similar content producer gets banned, it won't effect each and every one of their collaborators? When Arbcom banned Neotarf (and I'm not saying it was a bad ban,) the Signpost had to find a new volunteer to write the column Neo had been writing. I guess arbcom would have no effect on your editing if you have no interaction with any arb sanctioned editors or topic areas, when ignoring the editors for a minute, those topic areas alone already in existence effect editing articles about areas that literally contain half the people on planet earth, not to mention the general ones dealing with things like gun control, broadly construed, or post-1932 United States politics, broadly construed. I'm not at all saying I disagree with those decisions, but can you, with a straight face, claim that they have little to do with the running of Wikipedia? Kevin Gorman (talk)
        
        If English Wikipedia has consistently, and for any purposes, refused any suggestion that it is appropriate to spam the pages of tens of thousands of users (if not more) when they have not actively chosen to receive such mass messages, then why is there a clear majority of editors supporting this proposal? —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 18:50, 01 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is a discussion affecting all editors being held on an administrator's noticeboard? The ACE2015 RFC is already closed, and the elections should be conducted per that RFC. NE Ent 01:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Correct. Carrite (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Because AN is the typical board used to review the actions (past or proposed) of individual administrators. This is an action that I can undertake using my own administrative toolset. The RfC you point to had essentially no participation - significantly less than this section has had so far. Theoretically, I could literally have done this of my own accord with the possibility of being desysopped if someone raised it to arbcom afterwards. Floq's close of the RfC even explicitly raises the issue of lack of any meaningful participation in the RfC as an issue. I've already raised the issue on Jimbo's talk page as per arb policy he still has authority over arb issues; I've not yet raised it elsewhere because I'm nearly positive any other place I could raise it either has the same audience as AN, or would have people accuse me of canvassing. I'm more than open to suggestions as to where else to post it, however. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2016 NE Ent 17:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:BURO BMK (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  
  This section already has more comments from both sides than the 2015 RFC did, and involves something implementable via my own administrative toolset within this election cycle. You are suggesting that an proposed idea that would be implementable this election cycle using standard administrative tools should be put off an entire cycle because it wasn't brought up during an RfC that had about five comments? Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The fact only five folks participated isn't surprising -- we've done arbcom elections for quite a few years and we have converged on a consensus on how to do them, so I'm sure the 2015 is pretty much the same as 2014. NE Ent 02:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
note: As I have voted in previous elections, I would like to opt-out of any notifications in this particular venue. Regards, — Ched : ? 11:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I'll be setting up an opt-out page at some point in the near future both for this message and any similar future messages I may propose, and will personally add you to it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why is this poll not being held in some place like Village pump proposals? Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Legoktm:. We can separately debate about whether this is the best place to hold polls regarding administrative matters, but this is not an administrative matter. Arguably, it might be appropriate to place a notice here explaining that a discussion and poll is being conducted in a relevant place (maybe VPI). --S Philbrick (Talk) 15:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem with conducting this RfC here, but if there's a concern that not enough people will know about it, then someone can post notifications at the village pump and ANI. - Mr X 16:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations

We had a rather large AFD closed yesterday. No issue with conduct, here - The close was correct and proper. It's just that there were 400+ articles involved. So now WP:BADAFD has exploded. Does anyone have or know of a script that might make un-tagging and notating the talk pages of these articles quicker? Failing that.... got 5 minutes to tackle a few? The list of the 350+ articles remaining is at WP:BADAFD, updated sporadically by bot. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator used AWB to tag all of them in the first place, so I've requested self-reversion. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Running this past BRFA now, as a more general task in case this comes up again, so people can just poke me and I can run this task. Mdann52 (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another bad AFD

Someone please move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Draft:25 (Adele album) to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:25 (Adele album) for deletion, where this deletion discussion belongs. Then untransclude it from the AFD log page and transclude it at WP:MFD. 103.6.159.76 (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closed it - debates don't really get moved from one to the other like that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultraexactzz:Actually, to quote Wikipedia:Speedy keep:

If a page is nominated for deletion on the wrong forum (for example, a template on AfD or an article on MfD), the misplaced discussion may be procedurally closed and the page renominated on the correct forum, with the original nomination, and any comments made so far, copied over to the new nomination.

So you should have kept all the comments. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I procedurally closed the debate, and it was promptly renominated at MFD. The nomination there links the AFD. But just so that people don't have to actually read a second page to get the arguments, I added the AFD comments in a collapsed box. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 05:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia protected pages without expiry

I've been going through Category:Wikipedia protected pages without expiry looking for pages which may or may not need to still be indefinitely protected. While some clearly do, others are likely not necessary. For example, I have found several pages which had protections dating back up to 9 years ago, for mostly minor vandalism. Permanent protection is to be used sparingly, and only when the target page is likely to be a target for vandalism in perpetuity (for example, 4chan rightly is permanently semi-protected; one would expect it to attract a lot of vandals). However, many of these look like they were permanently protected or semi-protected so long ago, and are NOT general vandalism targets, so it's hard to justify keeping them protected forever. Since the default should be everyone can edit, except in cases where we have evidence they cannot; it seems hard to justify having over 3000 unexpiring protections, were some of them (maybe even most) clearly aren't needed. For example, 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series was indefinitely semi-protected WAY back in 2009. After 6 years, it is unlikely this article will receive enough heavy, drive-by vandalism necessary to maintain indefinite protection. I've been going through each page in the category, looking through the history, and trying to see if indefinite protection is still needed. It's a long task however, and requires a little good judgement and experience. If any other admins wish to help out, reviewing these articles and deciding how much is still really needed, feel free to pitch in and help. --Jayron 32 19:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at you go, upholding an ideal and stuff.

I'll poke through a few. Keegan (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When going through the category do note that not all pages that are showing up are protected indefinitely. I'm not sure what's causing this, but for example Labour hire in Namibia is listed and yet the page is clearly only protected for six months. Keegan (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at a random sample of ten or so pages, it looks like a lot of them have PC turned on, rather than semi. Is there maybe a more specifci cat for indef semi protection? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing about this category, Jayron32. There is also an enormous category (over 40K userpages) in Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy (and there are other large username categories) where accounts that are not currently blocked need to be removed from this category. That is a lot to take on so maybe I'll look over your old protected pages when I'm not busy with arbitration business. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds something that should not require a page-by-page review. A bot or script should be able to tell who is blocked and who isn't, and to remove those who are not from the category. Let me see if we can scare up a bot operator for that... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filed a request] at WP:BOTREQ. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Beeblebrox. I know of similar rote edits that need to be made and I hadn't considered seeing if a bot could handle them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the pages to unprotect go via WP:RFPP with a ping to the protecting admin (if still around). Right now, RFPP is usually not backlogged, and we can handle such requests reasonably quickly.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A category does exist for semi-protected pages, see Category:Wikipedia indefinitely semi-protected pages. A few months ago, I started evaluating articles, and Gilliam unprotected quite a few. I'd be happy to pick this back up, if the admin corps was willing to evaluate them on a mass scale, instead of having to post every one to WP:RfPP. Kharkiv07 (T) 13:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding fake heights

Please are preventing of adding fake heights to iranian actors and actress such this and sabotage by Erfan 1375World Cup 2010 (talk) 23:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

same problem by some IPsWorld Cup 2010 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the named account indefinitely as they have been warned repeatedly over the course of several months and have completely ignored it, never once having edited any kind of talk page. If you could identify the IPs causing similar problems that can be looked into as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

also some IPs that are shown in my contributions page possibley could belong to this user because handwrtting the same only adding fake heights please check them. 5.236.162.181 , 5.236.129.0 , 5.236.175.31

I undo all of them World Cup 2010 (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main point is these are unsourced heights. Getting into fake or not is a level of engagement that's not needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DUCK I'm more than willing to believe those three IPs are the same user who is now blocked. However, they have not used any of them in several days. If they return and evade the block by editing while logged out, post here again and ask for a WP:RANGEBLOCK. (which i don't know how to do but you can usually find an admin who does by posting here.) Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your report, everything appears to be in the range from 5.236.128.0 to 5.236.191.255 (5.236.128.0/18); is that correct? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedians by article count

Hello administrators, List of Wikipedians by article count has stopped updating since past few weeks. Can someone please give this a look? Many thanks. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Definitely seems to be updating regularly. — Earwig ^talk 08:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be (according to the page history log), but it isn't. My count has gone up by about 5 articles in the last few weeks, and I know I've added at least 100 new stubs in that time. Unless some of my other early articles have been deleted (unlikely, as every page I create goes on my watchlist), I think something is broken with the update. I make my count to be at least 300 articles greater than the current total, and I don't include disambig pages I've created from article moves (so it should be even higher). Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is some issue with data/dumps going on. Because stats.grok.se is also not updating since Oct. 12th. I'd raise it with WMF engineering. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Earwig, no its not updating anything (although the bot seems to be getting activated everyday). According to the report, I have created 553 pages (including redirects) whereas, as per this, I have created 927 pages. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AKS.9955, it is unlikely that someone from WMF will see your question here so I would crosspost this request at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) which gets more traffic from WMF staffers who work on technical matters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second Liz here – the article is definitely not updating properly (I should now be on it, but I'm not), and this problem definitely needs more eyes on it, so a post to WP:VPT sounds like a fine idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz and IJBall, I hope this will get resolved soon. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Rev-delundel

I was thinking about the MediaWiki:Rev-delundel interface message, which is the (del/undel) text used for revdel links. I've always found this to be a poor wording choice. The MediaWiki default is now (change visibility), which you can see on the test wiki, for example. A quick survey of other wikis shows many use the "change visibility" version, dewiki uses (+/-), and some others use variants like (show/hide). I prefer all of these to the current one. So, what do we think? If this has been discussed before, I apologise, but I assumed it hadn't since MediaWiki:Rev-delundel has no backlinks. — Earwig ^talk 08:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A think that wording makes sense. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say delete it and just use the MediaWiki default unless someone provides a good reason why our project needs to be unique for this. Jenks24 (talk) 12:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Hi, there was recently a consensus reached about changing the name and merging in the Non-Free content review material.

Can some adiministrators advise on what needs to be done to enable the merge to proceed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#Discussion regarding updating FFD to accommodate the NFCR merge. MER-C 14:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the consensus but I see pages being moved from FfDeletion to FfDiscussion. I hope any associated links are also addressed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

suspicious User

Hi please check and review User:Sheydai background. I think this account is belong to Category:Sockpuppets of Manimihan

such as Maninimihan this user is also intersted in Hossein Shahabi ‎and his films

World Cup 2010 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page (Sock Puppet Investigations) for you to report such concerns, which is a better venue for such things. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Follow the directions at Sock Puppet Investigations and create a case there. This is the proper place to report concerns like this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

DYK nomination with less than 1,500 characters

Wrong venue. See WT:DYK. sst✈^discuss 10:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello administrators, I am aware about the basic requirements for DYK; am aware that Everest (cigarette) wont pass it and hence requesting for your feedback here. This article is obviously less than 1,500 characters but has a very interesting fact. The name of the popular studio album Abbey Road of The Beatles was originally inspired by this cigarette and the album was named after it (before release and the working title of the album was also "Everest"). Due to shortage of time (and also due to the fact that The Beatles were not very happy with the name), Paul McCartney suggested that they just go outside (on Abbey Road), take a photo on there and name the album after the street.

Please see if this request can be accommodated on the DYK page and should you agree, I will nominate this for DYK. Either way, thanks for your time on this subject. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the fact is interesting, the article is woefully incomplete. It contains very little information about the cigarette brand (history, sales, ...) Compare Pall Mall (cigarette) for the kind of information I would expect in such an article. I don't think the 1500 characters need to be a hard limit, but there should be some level of completeness. —Kusma (t·c) 10:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kusma, thanks for your revert. I tried to dig a lot to find more information but very little was available. Let me still try and find out. I just found this subject very interesting and hence dropped a message here. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

IP removes speedy deletion tags

Closing. Matter has been resolved. (non-admin closure) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

85.100.112.6 removed speedy dewletion tags--Musamies (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved through deletion (User:Kadir Avcı). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arbitration motion regarding overlap of sanctions

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

To prevent confusion and overlap between existing sanctions,

Remedy 2 of the Bluemarine case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case and the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case continue to apply in this topic area;
Remedy 2.1 of the Election case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
Remedies 4 and 5 of the Free Republic case are rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
Remedy 1 of the Neuro-linguistic programming case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the Pseudoscience case continue to apply in this topic area;
Remedy 1.1 of the Tea Party Movement case is rescinded. The discretionary sanctions authorised for the American Politics 2 case continue to apply in this topic area;
Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions or article probations for the foregoing cases were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 14:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion

John Witherow Verification

Hello team,

I have been trying to verify the John Witherow page for a day or so now, with further citations needed (apparently) for it to be made official. I think I've added quite enough - how do i get this verified? Thanks TheoTheoDaviesLewis (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is already being dealt with at WP:BLPN; the OP has also raised the matter at the help desk and my talk page. I'd suggest inadvertent WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Giant Snowman 10:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

like to make a complinet about a user

Moved to AN/I as an incident. BMK (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[[Dom Capers\\

Someone please make a petition to get Dom Capers fired. I an so done with him. This defense today proved he needs to get fired. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 582: / Line 582: @@
 == like to make a complinet about a user  ==
 :'''<small>Moved to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#like_to_make_a_complinet_about_a_user AN/I as an incident]. [[User:Beyond My Ken|BMK]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 20:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)</small>'''
+== [[Dom Capers\\ ==
+Someone please make a petition to get [[Dom Capers]] fired. I an so done with him. This defense today proved he needs to get fired. --[[Special:Contributions/74.130.133.1|74.130.133.1]] ([[User talk:74.130.133.1|talk]]) 03:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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