Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→The Daily Caller: administrators are not special
Line 567: Line 567:
:::One last point: the fact that The Daily Caller has retained you for this matter is an action which is pretty much guaranteed to raise a lot of hackles here, since it suggests that they are considering legal action in order to make the page look the way they want. Even if that isn't the intent, there's a potential chilling effect merely from the involvement of a lawyer. [[User:Creffett|creffett]] ([[User talk:Creffett|talk]]) 02:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
:::One last point: the fact that The Daily Caller has retained you for this matter is an action which is pretty much guaranteed to raise a lot of hackles here, since it suggests that they are considering legal action in order to make the page look the way they want. Even if that isn't the intent, there's a potential chilling effect merely from the involvement of a lawyer. [[User:Creffett|creffett]] ([[User talk:Creffett|talk]]) 02:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
::::I have a couple recommendations. First you should register an account. Second you should read [[Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide|the plain and simple conflict of interest guide]] (which you'll be one step through because its first step is to register an account). This will help direct you towards how you can make specific edit requests at [[Talk:The Daily Caller]] and have it looked at by an editor. At this point, owing to the posting here I have no doubt that the talk page has more attention than before so any such requests will be given a fair, policy compliant, shot. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 03:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
::::I have a couple recommendations. First you should register an account. Second you should read [[Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide|the plain and simple conflict of interest guide]] (which you'll be one step through because its first step is to register an account). This will help direct you towards how you can make specific edit requests at [[Talk:The Daily Caller]] and have it looked at by an editor. At this point, owing to the posting here I have no doubt that the talk page has more attention than before so any such requests will be given a fair, policy compliant, shot. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 03:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

== Scope of resysop RfC and community desysop question ==

Coming here because I don't know where else to post, but I do think this needs review (not in a bad way) on the current resysop RfC, a [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/2019_Resysop_Criteria_(2)#Statement_16_by_Wugapodes|new proposal]] has been made to have a community desysop process. My concern here is pretty simple: it's at the very bottom of a long page; the proposal was about inactivity resysops, and you're very likely to only attract a very limited audience. It's entirely possible to get 20 or so people in support of it and gain "consensus", but if it were advertised on it's own, you'd likely get a hundred people or more participating, with a much more divided split.{{pb}}I guess my question is for a wider audience: should this be included in this RfC, or is it an important enough and controversial enough topic that it should be closed and have someone propose it on it's own if they want to. My view is the latter, but I thought it important enough that getting a wider view was needed. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 03:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:33, 16 October 2019

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)

    Template:Active editnotice

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
    CfD 0 0 0 0 0
    TfD 0 0 8 0 8
    MfD 0 0 0 0 0
    FfD 0 0 1 0 1
    RfD 0 0 15 0 15
    AfD 0 0 1 0 1

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (39 out of 8768 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    2024 Tyre airstrikes 2024-11-01 02:48 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade
    Mahmoud Bakr Hijazi 2024-11-01 01:52 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade
    0404 News 2024-11-01 01:50 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade
    Assassination of Imad Mughniyeh 2024-11-01 01:47 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade
    Rashad Abu Sakhila 2024-11-01 00:09 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade
    Israeli airstrikes on Al Qard Al Hasan 2024-10-31 23:51 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade
    List of best-selling boy bands 2024-10-31 22:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter
    Sporting CP 2024-10-31 20:23 2025-05-01 12:37 edit,move Well, that didn't take long. Black Kite
    October surprise 2024-10-31 18:52 2025-10-31 18:52 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement of WP:CT/AP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Sadh 2024-10-31 18:22 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Kamala 2024-10-31 17:02 2024-11-14 17:02 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba
    Hebraization of Palestinian place names 2024-10-31 09:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq
    Beit Hanoun wedge 2024-10-31 09:39 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq
    Baalbek 2024-10-30 22:09 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter
    Ada and Abere 2024-10-30 21:55 2024-11-03 21:55 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Susanna Gibson 2024-10-30 19:58 indefinite edit,move WP:BLP issues. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson (2nd nomination). Asilvering
    29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike 2024-10-30 19:00 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Ganesha811
    Hwang Hyun-jin 2024-10-30 13:09 2024-11-06 13:09 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Goodnightmush
    Khushali Kumar 2024-10-29 21:30 indefinite edit,move Restoring some protection after creating redirect Liz
    Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism 2024-10-29 20:05 2025-01-29 20:05 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP Ingenuity
    Orakzai 2024-10-29 19:32 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Bangash 2024-10-29 19:29 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Bengalis 2024-10-29 19:24 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case
    Zaher Jabarin 2024-10-29 19:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Killing of Shaban al-Dalou 2024-10-29 18:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Template:MusicBrainz release group 2024-10-29 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, My Life for Iran 2024-10-29 17:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Palestine and the United Nations 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Israel won't exist in 25 years 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Down with Israel 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Donald Trump and fascism 2024-10-29 17:20 2025-01-29 20:05 edit,move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Tim Sheehy (businessman) 2024-10-29 17:03 2024-11-12 17:03 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: restrict BLP violations from non-XC until after the election OwenX
    Mykolas Majauskas 2024-10-29 16:25 2025-04-29 13:09 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/BLP -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
    Tony Hinchcliffe 2024-10-29 01:19 2025-01-29 01:14 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP ToBeFree
    Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon 2024-10-28 20:37 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Kurdish–Turkish conflict 2024-10-28 19:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/KURD; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Macrobiotic diet 2024-10-28 16:00 2024-11-28 16:00 edit,move Persistent spamming: Per a complaint at WP:AN3 EdJohnston
    User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 34 2024-10-28 13:58 indefinite edit,move Fish and karate
    Fusion power 2024-10-28 03:46 2024-11-04 03:46 move Liz

    Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata

    Again we have editor TakuyaMurata, who seems to believe that they are the only one qualified to edit a nest of Draft sub-stubs that have remained in the Draft Namespace for years with trivial edits designed to allow them to keep their empire of contepts (many of them post-graduate esoteric Mathematics concepts) that either need to see consistent improvement or have any of the Alternatives to deletion forcably enacted. Consider the history of Draft:Microfunction. A user nominates it for G13 on September 15th at 22:10 UTC, and Graeme Bartlett restores it from a WP:REFUND request, I notice it be restored. I look at the previous content and see that it was proposed by Taku to be merged to Algebraic analysis on March 10th 2019 (6 months before the September 15th G13). I presumed that since the page had sat for 6 months and there was no objection in Algebraic analysis that all the content that was presumably worth saving was already spliced over. I redirected citing the MFD and the Merge proposal. I specifically noted that the previous content is in the page history to allow others to grab content if it was missed. This is significantly important. Less than an hour later, Taku claims the MFD was a Keep yet the consensus is quite clear for Merge/Redirect. We go back and forth a few times arguing in edit comments and I decide to let it go. In a little under 25 hours after I first attempted to redirect, Taku merge/redirects it to the same target. This, in my mind screams "Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". The content and formatting previously in the page was still available, yet Taku demands that no page started by them can be changed unless it has their blessing. I specifically chose these ways of redirecting without a move so that the original page history remains so that they could extract content that might be useful.

    So, because less strict sanctions have failed to work I therefore propose: TakuyaMurata is topic banned from undoing any action that in part or whole reverts a change done in good faith that promotes content from Draft namespace to Article namespace. Further TakuyaMurata is hereby limited to 1 successful WP:REFUND request for any individual Draft TakuyaMurata is strongly encouraged to take move all current Draft namespace mathematics stubs created by them to their User namespace to work on until they are ready for promotion to Article namespace.

    I am attempting to get at the heart of the issue: Taku's stubs that sit around for years that get trivial improvements made to them to avoid the CSD:G13 sweep. Interested users who appear to still be active: Topic ban participants (Cryptic—Unscintillating—Alsee—power~enwiki—Premeditated_Chaos—Beyond_My_Ken—RileyBugz—Johnuniq—Ivanvector—Cullen328) Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination) MFD participants (Robert McClenon—SmokeyJoe—Hut 8.5—UnitedStatesian—Mark viking) Submitted: Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, I have reverted the disruptive edit to the draft page Draft:Microfunction that overrode the outcome of the MfD (which was merger). After revert, I had finished the merger and redirected the page to mainspace. I ask other editors: which is more disruptive? A constant attempt to override the community consensus and disrupt the ordinary content development? Or having math draft pages in the draft space? I personally view this topic ban request itself as a disruption and has been put forth in the dishonest manner (whence, my proposal for interaction ban below). Again what is the real disruption? as opposed to the perceived but unreal one. -- Taku (talk) 07:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On closing the thread, it is a probably good idea to close the thread after #AfC and G13s is closed; since depending on the outcome of the latter, the problem behind this thread might become moot. —- Taku (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    • I have followed this User:TakuyaMurata & perpetual storage / refunds in draftspace for some years. Although I don't fully understand why Hasteur can't just ignore it all, I do agree that TakuyaMurata is using draftspace outside the ever intended scope of draftspace, and that he is perpetually perverse and obstinate about it his idiosyncratic use of draftspace.
    I would prefer the following:
    User:TakuyaMurata is banned from page WP:OWNership in Draftspace. He is banned from creating pages in draftspace, or requesting pages WP:REFUNDed to draftspace. Instead, User:TakuyaMurata should use either his own userspace, or subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics subject to consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics.
    --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: The gist of the issue is on how the draft is supposed to use. As can be seen from discussions at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Coherency (homotopy theory) (2nd nomination), there is enough supporting voices that having draft pages listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages (many of them are not mine) in the draft space is not an issue as long as the drafts are getting completed and moved to mainspace, which they are. (I hope I'm ok to express my view on the draft space in this thread.) -- Taku (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Taku, get the pages you believe to have positive potential out of draftspace, and put them under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/....
    Your views on draftspace are an underlying cause of this whole dispute. Put these views in a useressay, and in the meantime stop drafting in draftspace. Draftspace is for random drafts of unlikely potential that should be deleted if no Wikipedian takes ownership of them (either by userfying, moving to a WikiProject, or ideally, mainspacing them). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see below. -- Taku (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Banning Taku from using draftspace is completely consistent with his topic ban from even talking about draftspace. In fact, I think it is an necessary co-condition that was overlooked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're reading too much into it. If he'd been banned from draftspace, it would have been clearly delineated. It was not:
    "TakuyaMurata is indefinitely topic banned from any policy discussion regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed). He is further topic banned from discussing the applicability of policies and procedures regarding Draft namespace (broadly construed). He is further banned from participating in any MfD discussion for which there is a discussion of Draft namespace suitability (broadly construed)..."
    No where in that is he prohibited from using draftspace. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    {{No where in that is he prohibited from using draftspace}}. Exactly. A foolish oversight that has led directly to this perverse problem. There is no reason for him to use draftspace, and he is doing it in accordance with his mainstream-defying views of draftspace, which he is forbidden from explaining. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    TLDR: Taku was disrupting rule/policy/guideline/suggestion pages so a topic ban was proposed to restrict them from disrupting As the one who penned the topic ban I'd like to provide some context. The reason why we only went for discussing suitability of pages in Draft namespace is because at the time Taku was making proposals making counter proposals, and edit warring on rule/policy/guideline pages to argue effectively that GSD:G13 is "optional", that WP:REFUND can be requested indefinitely, that the requirement for improvement is only a "suggestion", and that their entire future topic dump is not only allowed, but encouraged by the charter of Draft space. Making counter and retalitory proposals to attempt to get his critics sanctioned or banned (see proposed Interaction Ban below) only demonstrates that TakuyaMurata still does not get the message. Hasteur (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: Please be civil. Calling such actions "foolish" or "perverse" is unnecessary and should be avoided. Buffs (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not criticising any person, just the end result. An unintended consequence, it was unexpected that Taku would put his head down and insist on carrying in practice on with his idiosyncratic opinion on how DraftSpace should function. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the proposal by User:SmokeyJoe. It makes more sense to ban Taku from all use of draft space than to ban him from talking about it while he can still use it. The current situation makes no sense, but it is clear that Taku is using draftspace as a dustbin. It is also true that Hasteur, and another previous editor, have been going to absurd lengths to keep draft space clean, but there can be abuses both ways. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query @TakuyaMurata: Why not move these to user space? Where is the harm there? Buffs (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buffs: Because those drafts are not mine and it makes sense to put them at the place for drafts development. The harm would be putting them in the user page would give a wrong impression that they need to be treated differently than other math drafts in the draft space. — Taku (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @TakuyaMurata: How would they be treated "differently"? Buffs (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buffs: For example, some might hesitate to make minor or major edits, assuming they are my drafts and instead of drafts belonging to the community. —- Taku (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      They indeed may hesitate to do so, but that is contrary to policy:
      WP:OWN: "All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page...Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. Nevertheless, they are not personal homepages, and are not owned by the user. They are part of Wikipedia and must serve its primary purposes; in particular, user talk pages make communication and collaboration among editors easier... While other users and bots will more commonly edit your user talk page, they have rights to edit other pages in your user space as well. Usually others will not edit your primary user page, other than to address significant concerns (rarely) or to do routine housekeeping, such as handling project-related tags, disambiguating links to pages that have been moved, removing the page from categories meant for articles, or removing obvious vandalism and/or BLP violations."
      Additionally, you can mitigate that by posting a note right at the top stating that constructive edits are welcome and appreciated. Likewise, there's no reason such information cannot be incorporated into existing articles. Such information doesn't need to be 100% perfect. Buffs (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query @Hasteur: What is the harm in allowing a draft to linger? Why the rush to delete at 6 months? Why is it 100% ok in userspace, but not in draftspace? Buffs (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buffs: I have no problem with letting it linger for one or two 6 month periods, however some of these drafts have been sitting (even after repeated reminders) for over 3 years. I have no problem with it living in Taku's workspace for an eventually I'll work on this, but for it to sit in the Draft namespace for years without any substantive (i.e. make some actual effort at improving) improvement suggests that either it's some sort of neologism/WP:MADEUP/Original Research/similar that would (if it is a thing) be best served by using regular editing and inserting it into a parent level article and improving the content enough to justify a WP:SPINOUT. 6 months is the pescribed timer under CSD:G13 which has (over time) been expanded to include both AFC drafts and non-AFC drafts. The purpose of Draft space is to have a collaberative area where multiple editors can edit and improve content to get it to namespace. I believe I have expertiese as I was instrumental in the original drafting of the namespace including defining CSD:G13 and it's various modifications. In Taku's userspace it's not eligible for CSD:G13 plain and simple. In Draftspace the pages show up on the "not edited by a non-bot in the last 6 months" so people who like working backlogs (like myself) see them and try to action them. In some cases we action it by Nominating for CSD:G13, in others we Nominate for MFD, in still others we redirect the page and the talk page to as closely related mainspace page we can find so that energy and effort can be focused into developing a Encyclopedia and not spent chasing these drafts around every 6 months because Taku objects to any of the Alternatives to Deletion yet doesn't make any effort to actually improve the drafts unless it's in front of a deletion process. Hasteur (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @TakuyaMurata: A year seems like a reasonable time to wait. Why haven't you improved them until an AFD? Buffs (talk) 04:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buffs: It’s not like I always we wait for an MfD (please see the stats at #Votes below). MfD or not, the drafts tend to get finished and moved to mainspace. I don’t have a particular order for working with drafts, but an MfD is a feedback process (in the form the editors use today): it can raise some issues and I don’t mind working on them when they are raised. If an editor raises a concern at the talkpage (or less optimally make a disruptive edit), I can also respond to that (e.g., Draft:Microfunction); that’s how Wikipedia tends to work. One editor makes an edit and the others respond. —- Taku (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, @TakuyaMurata: see above. I see no reason you cannot incorporate these into existing articles, make them a standalone article, or userfy them. Keeping them in perpetual "draft" state is a pointless endeavor and detracts from other editors. If you're refusing to incorporate into existing articles, make these articles, or userfying them, then I see little choice but to ban you from such creations as you are misusing a process and becoming disruptive via that refusal. 6 months is more than ample time for even someone who is busy. Buffs (talk) 04:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Again, could you look at the states I mentioned below? "perpetual", I agree that can be problematic. But that's just not true; the drafts started by me do get finished and get moved to mainspace as part of existing articles or standalone articles (or deleted in MfDs); I don't think there is an exception. -- Taku (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I didn't notice your response. I have responded to you below. -- Taku (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      No, let's keep it here. You have at least 4 articles in draft space for over 3 years that I've seen presented as evidence here: [1] [2] [3] [4]. I don't know if there are more or not...I don't care. There's no reason to hang onto these in draft space this long. Hasteur is coming across as brash and draconian, but he also has a point. Your claims of "I don't have articles perpetually in Draft state" doesn't hold water. You do. By doing so, it unnecessarily adds to a list of articles that need help. Buffs (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Votes

    • Support as proposer Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I'm amazed that this problem is still hanging on by its fingernails. I agree with Hasteur that an end needs to be put to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Although it is clear that someone is upset, MFDs have also resulted in a keep vote. An MFD that results in merge or redirect also should then not be overridden by a G13 nomination or deletion. Probably drafts that have survived MFD with some result other than delete should be tagged so that subsequent editors know how to proceed. I think that much of what is there should be in Taku's user space if he wants to hang onto it longer than years before promoting to article. Undeleting is fairly simple, and Taku is one of two users that I will undelete for on request even if nothing was done to improve since the previous undelete. Other serial undelete requesters I will question to see how interested they are on improving the draft. But as you can see I agree with TakuyaMurata is strongly encouraged to take move all current Draft namespace mathematics stubs created by them to their User namespace to work on until they are ready for promotion to Article namespace. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I remember the last time this came up. My take on this hasn't changed since then. I think TakuyaMarata is being absurdly stubborn about this. But, he's also been a highly productive content creator. What he's doing may be silly He's being an ass, but it's relatively harmless and the effort that's been put into this vendetta far exceeds the benefit of chasing down a few ancient drafts. I am reminded of the North-going Zax and a South-going Zax. Move on to more important things. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I will support almost any measure to check Taku's insistence on using draft space as an archive for what are essentially topic titles. The previous topic ban, which had to do with discussions of policy, has not worked because it just causes Taku to engage in preterition about draft space. Something needs to be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as formulated (also see below). First “undoing any action that in part or whole reverts a change done in good faith that promotes content from Draft namespace to Article namespace.” seems moot since I never undo constructive edits (only the disruptive ones). “TakuyaMurata is hereby limited to 1 successful WP:REFUND request for any individual Draft” doesn’t quite work since I also routinely request refunds of drafts created other than me. My understanding is that there is no community consensus that having draft pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/List of math draft pages is disruptive. What is disruptive is precisely a thread like this. Drafts are getting completed and moved to mainspace. If some particular old draft is having an issue, there is an MfD for that. I don’t understand the issues here. I agree with RoySmith; I am getting tired too. Can we just move on? See also User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Only_Warning. Is this really how we want to Wikipedia to work? -- Taku (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support this unfortunate solution to TM's WP:Failing to get the point; if he would simply move all his (and he makes it very clear he is the "owner") content to his userspace, we wouldn't be here. But no. The draftspace is for drafting, and abuse of the six-month G13 window is detrimental to the efforts of many editors to build the encyclopedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't see how this benefits the encyclopedia. These drafts are usually viable mainspace articles, or at least viable parts of mainspace articles. I have restored plenty of them at WP:REFUND when I wouldn't have done so for another editor, for exactly this reason. Wikipedia does accept articles on technical or inaccessible topics, denigrating them as "post-graduate esoteric Mathematics concepts" isn't helpful. Preventing somebody from writing them just because they take a bit long and don't do so in their own userspace isn't helpful either. I do also have to object to the statement above that "Less than an hour later, Taku claims the MFD was a Keep yet the consensus is quite clear for Merge/Redirect." The MfD in question was closed as Keep, so Taku has a point there. Hut 8.5 06:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative proposal: interaction ban with Hasteur

    I completely agree with "an end needs to be put to it". This proposal is a much cleaner and simpler approach to the dispute. This thread itself is enough evidence supporting such a ban. -- Taku (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: A few have suggested the proposal is invalid because it is a counter-proposal. That’s not really an argument; please discuss the merits of the proposal independently. — Taku (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the argument is being made that it is a retaliatory proposal, with no supporting evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 05:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see my comment below. (If “retaliatory” is a reason for the rejection of the proposal, the first proposal/strike should also be automatically rejected; that’s why it’s not an argument and the vote is invalid. It cannot be one-sided.) -— Taku (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suppose as a proposer. -- Taku (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Hasteur being the main person voicing objection to Taku's use of draftspace does not mean that Hasteur is the only person troubled by Taku's non-standard use of draftspace. Taku, please take your drafts to userspace. Anyone can collaborate with you there. To generally invite others to work on your mathematics drafts, use subpages of WikiProject Mathematics. Draftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users with long term activities. You use of draftspace is disrupting the fragile working of draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      And "Draftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users" is precisely my problem. Because it is not and it is not intended to be. Draftspace is precisely the place for the collaborative development of the content. -- Taku (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There is so much history of practice that demonstrates this to be wrong. Draftspace is not functionally suitable for collaboration. WP:DUD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @TakuyaMurata: I believe your statement just above violates your previous topic ban. I suggest you strike it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I assumed that, in this thread which is the continuation of the previous one, I am ok to express my view on the draft space, in order to respond to SmokeyJoe in a meaningful way. But ok I struck that. -- Taku (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish to object to the views being expressed here by SmokeyJoe, specifically that Draftspace is for random drafts of unlikely potential that should be deleted if no Wikipedian takes ownership of them (either by userfying, moving to a WikiProject, or ideally, mainspacing them). and Draftspace is for waylaying spammers, fools, COI editors, and for previously AfD-deleted WP:TOOSOON pages, it is not for established users with long term activities. I do not think these accurately reflect either a general consensus, or current practice. I am an "established user with long term activities" I believe, but I routinely use draftspace when i start new articles. I am actively working on a draft now, started less than a week ago. I also normally advise relative newcomers, particularly at the Teahouse to start new articles in draft space, often but not always under WP:AFC. I have collaborated with other editors (usually one at a time, that is I and one other editor) in Draft space. I cite as an example Holocaust Wall Hangings now in mainspace, but in Draft when i did most of my edits to it.I stongly object to statements that such uses of draft space are "perverse" or not approved, and are evidence of disruption. As to the proposed topic ban, it seems drastic to me, but i have not reviewed the actions on which it is based, and i express no opinion for or against it at this time. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    These "views" are not so much my "views" but my observations of what happens there, both as a wikipedia editor, and from real world experience with others, who didn't know I am a Wikipedian, telling me of there experience with a Wikithon. It is not how I think it should be, but my observation of how it is. For real newcomers, draftspace is a place of isolation from the real community. Newcomers should get into mainspace, where they meet real editors interested in the same pages. Draftspace reviewers may be all nice people, but rarely are they genuinely interested in the draft topic, and rarely do they engage with the drafter before the drafter submits their draft.
    Draft is not for established users with long term activities. I stand by that, with a small exception only that a few admins make use of draftspace (I am aware of you and User:BD2412 doing this). These few admins are very non-representative of long term editors through being admins, and not being intimidated by the routine deletions, or by the considerable apparent power imbalance between drafter and reviewer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, I think that draftspace is underutilized as a place to start articles on needed subjects. I think every red link in a list of notable people or topics, or in our lists of requested entries, should automatically get a draft to be built upon. I would allow drafts on topics like those (such as my thousands of drafts of missing state supreme court justices) to be tagged with a bypass to the six-month deletion protocol. bd2412 T 01:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BD2412, I am not familiar with your thousands of drafts. Why is it not a good idea to create each as a stub? I notice that you get your drafts up to a high standard, much higher than minimally required, before moving to mainspace. Is this excessive meta:immediatism? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: I mean these thousands of drafts. Well, now under 2,000. The typical one of these currently looks like this, which is below stub standards, but these are all obviously inherently notable subjects for which sources can be found, and I get one fixed up and moved to mainspace every few days or so (or someone else does), so they should all be done before 2030. I'm working on the no-deadline model here. bd2412 T 03:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Impressively organised list! I strongly support the "no deadline" model. I think it is an option to mainspace the lot, even with "YEAR to YEAR" text, although I understand that others differ, and less organised people than you would make a horrednous mess. It would be nice if trusted people could apply a {{G13-exempt}} tag, so that non-admins could use draftspace on longer tie periods. I have suggested that people, like Taku, could use WP:WikiProject subject pages or userspace, but the "Draft:" is desirable other the others. Like I said to DES, my statements are my observations on how draftspace works for newcomers (i.e. badly), and they do not reflect my preference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose- silly tit-for-tat retaliatory proposal. Reyk YO! 08:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose just talk calmly to each other, and interaction can continue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Except the user seems incapable of working with other editors in civil manners; here is one evidence User_talk:TakuyaMurata#Only_Warning (maybe it was a bait for me to make mistakes?) —- Taku (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support one-way interaction ban (Hasteur banned from interaction with TakuyaMurata) - by their own words Hasteur came back from an extended wikibreak just to push this issue, and wasted no time recruiting all their old allies to go after TakuyaMurata again. Hounding is defined as "the singling out of one or more editors, ... to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, ... with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor." Many editors commenting here are not familiar with the history of this dispute but I am, and it's been going on for years. Every time it comes up we see that Hasteur (or rarely one or two other users) has a bee in their bonnet because someone has got in the way of their principal activity of purging things from draft space. The problem of draft space being used contrary to Hasteur's personal criteria is a problem for Hasteur. The problem for the community is the massive waste of time and energy we go through each time six months passes from the previous dispute when Hasteur brings it up again. Forcing Hasteur to stay away from TakuyaMurata will solve that problem. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as malformed. As phrased, such an IBAN is not clear as to whom is banned and who isn't or if it's both. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, I didn’t think that matters; it is all the case that User:Hasteur first makes a disruptive edit (e.g., vandalism on draft pages or overriding the community consensus) and I revert the edit. One way ban on him or two ways don’t make a difference. — Taku (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Such a funny thing, calling a Bold action Vandalism. Clearly someone hasn't read WP:NOTVAND in a while. Hasteur (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Both of you stop your snide remarks toward each other, the disparaging remarks, and stick to facts. Buffs (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Retaliatory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      This is quite odd; it is ok for User:Hasteur to raise a concern but I, on the other hand, am not allowed to raise a concern? I have been thinking that an interaction ban is needed for some time and this thread just gave me a push for proposing it. Perhaps this emery vote shows you actually don’t have a counterargument for this proposal. — Taku (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I invite the proposer to read WP:PUNISH and self strike this proposal. On one hand we have a demonstrated pattern of disruption including attempting to get their critics Interaction banned from TakuyaMurata, and on the other hand we have repeated suggestions/warnings/consensus debates all saying the same thing. I further refer to TakuyaMurata's continued WP:NOTTHEM arguments that everyone except themselves is responsible for their current position. Hasteur (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Solomon-like alternate proposal

    Consensus is not in favour of this proposal, which has been open for around 10 days with near-unanimous opposition. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Both User:Hasteur and User:TakuyaMurata are topic banned from draft space (broadly construed). Anything currently in draft space for which TakuyaMurata is the primary author is moved to their user space. Two-way interaction ban between User:Hasteur and User:TakuyaMurata. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Yet Another Proposal

    Specific TBAN: User:TakuyaMurata is prohibited from editing/contesting the deletion or of articles in draft space that he created that are over 1 year old and are not currently under dispute as of 1 October 2019 and may not contest edits to such drafts after community consensus for deletion or merging/into an article, broadly construed. Exceptions: TakuyaMurata may continue such discussions as that already exist and may request pages to be restored in his own user space, but cannot create new drafts to circumvent this process. TakuyaMurata is also permitted to contest such edits in relevant fora: AN/ANI/AE/ArbCom, but is cautioned to not use such an option outside of exceptional circumstances.

    Limited IBAN for Hasteur: User:Hasteur must cease all direct communications with TakuyaMurata except as required by policy (such as notifications or technical requirements), broadly construed. Exceptions: Hasteur may bring Draft pages primarily edited by TakuyaMurata to relevant XfD pages, but must be solely for procedural reasons; remarks about TakuyaMurata are not permitted. Hasteur may also bring disputes with TakuyaMurata to relevant AN/ANI/AE/ArbCom pages, but must not engage with TakuyaMurata in such a discussion outside of ArbCom. Hasteur is reminded be brief in such a discussion, to WP:AGF, and to be WP:Civil.

    Rationale: TakuyaMurata is dragging out the draft process and keeping items in draft space much longer than necessary and has reached the point of being disruptive. There is no significant difference with the same information being contained on a user page. Hasteur is addressing this issue with a level of tenacity that is unnecessary and uncivil. Both users have noble intent, but have taken their views to such an extreme that they are actively causing disruption to Wikipedia and its processes/improvement and need to back down. Additionally, other proposals seem to lack consensus and do not appear to be capable of gaining consensus. This seems like a good time to produce another option that may. Buffs (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support as proposer. Buffs (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Support here should be construed as support for the whole package. It was never intended as separate proposals. Buffs (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I perceive this to be a "dilute any consensus to effectively nothing" proposal (when a RFC is initially proposed with 3 options and progressively gets counter-proposed up to 13 different options) to make closing this even more difficult. Second I note that the TBAN (as currently written) could be interperted as prohibiting TakuyaMurata from making any improvements to articles already in draft space. Should Taku wish to make an improvement they will have to move it to WP Mathematics space or to their userspace. I perceive this to be less than desirable. My goal is to get the drafts off the CSD:G13 rail and actually moving towards being workable mainspace content. Third, The locus of dispute moves is intermixed between a content (the drafts and their stale-ness) and conduct (labeling Bold actions as Vandalism, yelling at opponents through edit summaries, accusations of lying, etc) that makes it such that conduct and previously observed patterns of behavior are germane to the topic of "willful/WP:IDHT/WP:NOTBURO resistance to community improvement". Hasteur (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      It should not be interpreted in that manner. The ban is on articles HE'S created in draft space that are over a year. If he's contributing to drafts of others, I see no problem with it; that's behavior we WANT on Wikipedia. Buffs (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Buffs: Only to help me understand I wish to pose 2 hypothetical cases to understand the scope of the iBan.
      I discover (through some method) that Draft:Example Math Stub has been created by TakuyaMurata in the past, has been unedited in at least 200 days giving the impression that it is abandonded/stale, and has a practical mainspace larger topic. To affirmatively test the community consensus I nominate for XfD and request a redirect-merger so that content is preserved and I introduce into my nominating statement the history of the page. Does this fall afoul of the interaction ban?
      Second: Effectively same as the first, except instead of nominating for XfD I redirect the article to what appears to be an appropriate mainspace partent topic as a WP:BOLD action, leaving the actual merger as an exercise for a knowledgable editor to perform at their leisure through the page history of the Draft still being available. Does this fall afoul of the interaction ban? Is TakuyaMurata prohibited from reverting the redirect?
      Hasteur (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Valid questions. No, none of these fall afoul of such a ban as you aren't addressing TakuyaMurata. Based on the limited information you provided, TakuyaMurata is allowed to contest such a redirect. We aren't looking to just delete everything. I'm seeing a lot of drafts that are resulting in good additions to articles. Edit warring will result in standard bans. Buffs (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      After seeing clarification, Support Topic Ban, Oppose Interaction Ban As referenced below, providing the perverse incentive to silence one of your critics is never appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (but prefer 2 year period to 1 year): This seems the most sensible proposal yet (kudos to proposer Buffs). As I said, if some editors really believe I have been and still been planning to use the draft space (or user space) for the purpose of keeping my personal study notes, this agreement would address that concern very well. My only gripe is that “1 year” seems too short (just because sometimes I don’t have time to edit Wikipedia as much as I like, depending on my real lift situations). — Taku (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Oppose without the interaction ban: I cannot understand User:Hasteur couldn’t agree with the requirement to be civil. I hate to say but it proves once again that the whole thread is ALL about their personal grudge against me. The community needs to send a strong message that Wikipedia is not their playground. —- Taku (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Taku is invited to read AGF is not a suicide pact and reconsider this incivil aspersion. It's not a personal grudge, it never has been. It's always been about your use of the Draft namespace and how it is significantly divergent with the community consensus. Following the edits of a editor who has repeatedly demonstrated a deficiency in their understanding of standard operating procedure is not just acceptable but endorsed. This is something I would have expected an editor who has been editing wikipedia for over 17 years 12 July 2002 to have learned long ago. Hasteur (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support and kudos to Buffs for the well-rationalized proposal. As for the length of Taku's restriction, 1 year is plenty; if you haven't addressed a draft in a full year and some other editor wants to do something with it, let them. If someone improves it then that's what we're all here for, and if it gets deleted you can ask for it to be restored to your user space for when you do eventually have time for it. While wanting them to stay in draft space for others to collaborate on is a noble goal, the simple reality is that in several years none actually have attracted anyone to collaborate. I would offer to help, and I think I have before, but your topics are well above my level of knowledge. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support – 3 years is too long for a draft to be in draftspace, but Hasteur also needs to step back from policing Taku. This is a simple but surgical solution. – Levivich 02:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. This is a user who seriously believes that it's appropriate for mainspace to have content like "Let M be a real-analytic manifold and X its complexification. (The definition of microfunctions here)." Diff You need to be followed carefully (no interaction ban), and if you do this frequently despite cleanup, you need to be shown the door. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You're looking for this diff I think, not the idly adding a reference diff you actually linked to. But yes, this is typically how mathematical information is presented. Maybe it shouldn't have been presented this way in an encyclopedia article, but you could have tried to fix it instead of just blindly reverting, couldn't you? This seems very "damned if you do (promote your work to use in an article), damned if you don't (develop article stubs left in draft space)", doesn't it? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    AfC and G13s

    Worldbruce correctly pointed out that the oldest AfC drafts are approaching the 6 month mark and thus vulnerable to G13s. I'm duplicating here for two things:

    1) An immensely non-subtle request for some more reviewers (and active reviewers) to work on the oldest drafts to work us away from that time.

    2) Notwithstanding the above, we were hoping those admins who handle G13s as part of their workflow would agree that drafts awaiting review are not subject to G13s. This is distinct from the 2nd criterion of G13 which reads "Userspace with an {{AFC submission}} template" - with modern AfC the issue lies on us not being able to review quickly enough rather than a specific abandonment by the user.

    Thanks in advance, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    As an interim solution, one could just mass-edit drafts which are up to review.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why shouldn't G13 apply?
    We have a problem with good drafts getting lost in our broken article creation process (the only way I know to write articles is for a permissioned-up editor to write them offline and then paste them in as a fait accompli, already robust against CSD and PROD – everything else is broken). We also have a large backlog of drafts. However when I review those drafts, I typically find just a couple which are worth adopting and moving to mainspace, and several thousand which are barely more than obvious spam.
    I'd like to see more people filtering through the drafts backlog and saving what's appropriate (even just editing them a bit will delay things). But for the vast majority, I'm not going to miss them in the slightest. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole idea behind the introduction of G13 was to remove stale drafts, which have no chance to be accepted and are not of any interest to anybody, including the creator. The means to prove this is to see whether the draft has been recently edited. This is not an ideal means, but one can argue that indeed if a draft has not been edited in a long time then nobody is interested in trying to get it moved to the article space. However, if the draft has been submitted, somebody is interested in getting it out of the draft, but usually it does not make sense to edit submitted draft, because important feedback would be coming as a result of the rejection (or even the draft will be moved). Thus, the fact that a submitted draft has not been edited for half a year does not mean it became stale, only that we do not have enough reviewers. This is why they should not be eligible for G13.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you're talking only of drafts where they've been waiting for review a long time? I'd be happy that they're not G13'ed, agreed. Any delay there is WP's issue, not the author's.
    But most of what I see have been submitted and have been reviewed (and rejected). The delay has come in at that point, where no rework has been done, and I'm still happy to G13 these. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I fully agree on both points, and indeed this is what I (and, if I understood correctly, also Nosebagbear) was talking about.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do we have appropriate links to the best categories by which to find these sets of drafts? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the problem here less about lack of reviewing, and more about lack of reviewers? It's a walled garden where only "accepted" reviewers can take part. No wonder there aren't enough of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what it was at before this thread but I did a few and saw some others doing a few and we're currently at the 5 month mark for the old submitted for review. This is obviously closer to 6 than ideal. I will state, as I have whenever G13 are brought up, that I think G13 should not be a speedy but instead a PROD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it likely that the backlog is due to well-written, properly formatted, borderline notable drafts/articles, which would take effort (shifting through more than three refs not always clear which three, more than one page of google search result, foreign language sources). Agreeing to accept all borderline cases (perhaps adding the notability tag) that have no other problems might be the way to solve this problem long-term. The volume of new drafts/articles is only going to increase, while even admins seem to have problem with being versed in all notability/deletion guidelines. If the focus was on the most critical problems (are) vandalism, obvious hoaxes, copyright violations , and defamatory material about living persons, followed closely by pages that exploit Wikipedia for money (think spam/promotion) -WP:NPP, the users that currently are active (or want to be) might be able to handle the load. I could have already reviewed hundreds of pages if it were so, while right now, while I try to get myself well-versed in PAG (an endeavor that will take months), all I'm doing is handling only the most obvious cases, and going by the competition at that end of the pie (don't tell me pie has not, ends or corners), I'd say many, if not most, others are, as well. An overworked, understaffed security system ought to be guarding against utter shite, no more. Usedtobecool TALK ✨ 17:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not just move them to userspace and leave redirects in place to that user space? Buffs (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well G13 should not apply to a submitted but unreviewed draft. Anybody tagging to delete or deleting such pages should put their effort into reviewing them instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the AfC backlog is causing a conflict with G13, suspend G13 until the situation is resolved. I would also support indefinitely suspending G13, because it's dumb. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps drafts are indeed cheap. But what's the spam-prune mechanism for AfC? Is there one? At present, G13 fills (slowly!) that role. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    G11 works just fine. My feeling is that if it's not really csdable aside from g13, it probably shouldn't be g13'd (some exceptions.) Praxidicae (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Like Praxidicae said, the spam-prune mechanism for AfC, like the rest of Wikipedia, is G11. And it's much faster than G13. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is G11 faster? (on average). Most (well, practically all) of these drafts aren't being reviewed at all for G11. G11 needs some active intervention by a reviewer, G13 gets there eventuall by inertia.
    I've seen two G11, both of which were pretty obviously WP:N even if their current articles were problematic Draft:Gin Mare (already discussed on WP:CSD) and Draft:The Savile Row Company. I challenged Savile Row Company's CSD this morning, but another admin deleted it anyway, without discussion. So it's also a problem that CSDs aren't challengable or discussable, they're just deleted anyway (see WP:CSD, where even discussing the problem attracts threats of blocks). G11 is neither appropriate for Drafts (at least, as practiced today) nor is it practical, as no-one is doing bulk reviewing to apply it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. If a draft is either a) abandoned without ever being submitted for review or b) reviewed and rejected and then ignored for 6 months it should still be eligible for G13. By excluding submitted and unreviewed drafts, it is clear we aren't holding our shitty processes against people. --Jayron32 16:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to make two distinct points here.
      • First, it's obvious that the G13 clock should start from when the draft was last reviewed. Most review systems (code review, manuscript review, responding to a parking ticket, whatever) have some concept of who's turn it is. When the author submits something, it becomes the reviewer's turn. When the reviewer comments, it's back to being the author's turn. Depending on the process, there may be more than two parties involved, but it's always somebody's turn to do something next. In our case, we don't have assigned reviewers (or, for that matter assigned authors), but there's still clearly times when it's the author's turn, and times when it's the review team's (i.e. our) turn. It's absurd to count time when it's our turn against the author's clock.
      • Second, the definition of G13 talks about, "not been edited by a human in six months". I often find declined drafts that were last edited several months ago that I think should never make it to mainspace. Sometimes there's a useful comment I want to make, but I don't because I know doing so will reset the G13 clock. That's just stupid. I shouldn't have to play wiki game theory to decide whether the benefit of adding my comment exceeds the harm of resetting the clock. So, the clock should not be reset by a reviewer leaving a comment.
      • -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Draft:Running on Waves is a perfect example that I found today. It was last declined on 18 March. Since that time, nothing significant has happened. On 21 May, it was resubmitted with zero changes. On 30 September (i.e. earlier today), a reference was removed because the URL was redirecting to a porn site (don't say I didn't warn you if you go look). And, then I came along a few minutes ago and declined it again. Why should any of those things reset the G13 clock? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: A few observations as I precieve that several editors are trying to hijack this for their personal objectives:
      1. CSD:G13 says unedited (absent a bot edit) for 6 months. The goal is to keep pages improving or admit defeat on them. Originally it was just pages that were enrolled in AFC as the editors knew that they'd get a review to help them fix issues. It was subsequently expanded to all Draft namespace pages as it was discovered that there was just as much Adspam/BLPVIO/Test pages/hopeless content that was in draft space but not tagged for AFC.
      2. If pages are falling out the back of AFC for being submitted but not yet reviewed, then we need more people reviewing submissions (or commenting on issues) which magically resets the Last Edited date and saves it from being G13d. I note it appears the current backlog is 2+ months.
    • If people want to disable G13, then we will start racking up more and more questionable content that will never serve the purpose of Mainspace improvement/content. Hasteur (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. I like to think that no admin would ever do a G13 on a never-reviewed draft.
    A better response would be an alert to submitted drafts approaching six months. Possibly, specify “never reviewed” drafts, separated from resubmissions. Is there an easy link to navigate to these? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: only to make sure your intention is clear, you are referring only to pages that are in the AFC pipeline that are being requested for review, not pages that aren't in the AFC pipeline i.e. just random pages without an AFC header on them. Hasteur (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Referring to the hypothetical case of a properly submitted AfC draft that has failed to receive any review. Has such a case occurred? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Draft:List of qadis of Mbarara District is the oldest never-reviewed draft, and it's from 8 May 2019. As far as I know there's no fool-proof way of determining if a page has never been reviewed unless you do a quarry looking for only a single submission template. Primefac (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Primefac has found one (and one that I was reviewing in the meantime). I figure if I'm going to defend CSD:G13 and not claim that things are falling out the back end, I should review some of the oldest AFC submissions and deal with them. Hasteur (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    G13 does not *require* the admin to delete the page, but there are so many routine G13 deletions that it is probably unreasonable to expect every G13 to be given a critical look, even brief. Are G-13 eligible pages that are pending review specially flagged? I see that Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as abandoned drafts or AfC submissions is empty, which suggests to me that some admins are very quick to empty it. Category:AfC pending submissions by age/Very old is large at (1,088 P). It contains pages that were submitted for review (including re-review) over 6 months ago, but these pages have been edited post-review. Is the tracking of pending submissions robust? How many could be quietly falling off the backend deleted per G13? I note that these pages are, broadly, difficult to review. From a review of several, I think it would be better to auto-move to mainspace than to silently speedy delete (delete by the standard G13 process). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair amount of scare-mongering, and completely untrue. The oldest extant draft awaiting review at this exact moment is from 13 May, which is still 1.5 months away from being G13-able. No, G13 pages that are also pending review are not flagged (other than being theoretically in both the "pending" and "G13-eligible" categories). At the moment none of the pending drafts will be "falling off the backend" for at least a month or two. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My questions were genuine questions. I am not up to speed with these things. Are you guaranteeing that no submitted draft will be deleted before being reviewed? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I took It contains pages that were submitted for review (including re-review) over 6 months ago as your preface to concerns about pages being deleted. As I said, there is no "pages that are 6+ months old that are both pending and G13-able" category, likely because it's never been an issue (and still very unlikely to be one).
    I am going to interpret your latest question as "deleted via G13" (as unreviewed pages are G11'd etc all the time), but no, I can only guarantee that will not happen for at least two months from now because there are no pages that fit that bill; there is no technical way of preventing it at the moment. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes of course sorry. I've sort of tongue tied myself there, because I am not convinced that there are not any submitted drafts that should not be allowed a quiet death, such as hopeless repeatedly submitted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support modifying G13 to exclude submitted drafts which are unreviewed. I've seen plenty of admins who speedy-delete pages that obviously don't qualify except under a blatant misreading of the criterion (e.g. a page is deleted at XFD, and a completely different page on that topic is G4 deleted as a repost), and just like with the other criteria, G13 needs to reflect its intention clearly. The point is to delete content that's been forgotten by its writer or that's been rejected as inappropriate for the encyclopedia: if it's still waiting for review, and none of the other speedy criteria applies, there's no way it should be deleted without discussion. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Draft space is specifically designed to remove the urgency around controlling abuse in article space. We have time to sit and think. Guy (help!) 11:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    1. Draft articles subject to a good-faith submission for review are not eligible for G13.
    2. Maintenance edits, including declining review, are not counted when calculating staleness.

    That would seem to fix the problem? Guy (help!) 11:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't quite see how those would work. They seem right, but are a bit vague in their expression. Consider the following:
    Valid timeouts (and thus automatic processing to G13 is practical):
    • Not submitted for review. There have been no reviews.
    • Submitted for review. Reviewed, failed. No more edits until timeout. The last edit was a failed review.
    Timeout was WP's fault for slow processing (so no G13 is appropriate):
    • Submitted, not yet reviewed. Last edit is a review request.
    • Submitted, reviewed, re-submitted, but still pending a re-review (any number of times). Last edit is a review request.
    Impossible to judge automatically or trivially, thus must not be actioned automatically.
    • Last edit is a "non-content, non-review edit". Neither a review, nor a review request. Automatically we can't tell what else it was, either a "content edit" or a "maintenance edit". In such cases though, we should err on caution, not G13.
    Andy Dingley (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the principles Guy lays out are correct but agree with Andy that if we're codifying them in some sort of way (which is probably needing an RfC) that the language would need tweaking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noting for the record that I originally argued that any edit (regardless of if it was a bot/non-bot) should reset the G13 clock to the the most objective measurement possible instead of leaving it to discretion to determine if the edit qualified for substantial. In fact when I ran a bot to action ArticlesForCreation and Draft space I followed the more strict interpertation to prevent accusations of bias in the evaluation of G13. I strongly suggest that JzG (and all those that want to change G13's interpertation/operation) to go WT:CSD and propose a change to the interpertation via WP:RFC and establish consensus. Hasteur (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose any alteration of WP:CSD policy from a page other than WT:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support "Draft articles subject to a good-faith submission for review are not eligible for G13. Oppose the "good-faith" clause, bad-faith submissions are easily REJECTED/DECLINED by the ACFH tool, and resubmission without improvement is an existing reason to nominate and delete at MFD (see WP:DMFD). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • support bot-like maintenance edits, not including reviewer responses, not resetting the G13 clock, however, it is unimportant. The point of G13 is that abandoned drafts don't exist unwatched forever. Another six months doesn't hurt. Support gnomes using a key edit summary code to work with G13 bots, if someone wants to do that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose declining a review not counting when calculating staleness. A declined review should include a meaningful explanation, and it should be presumed that the drive-by contributor will need time to read and respond.
    Oppose use of the word "staleness". wikt:stale is ambiguous. Stale does not equal old. Some topics are timeless and not prone to go stale. Others go stale overnight. If you mean "unedited for six month", use those words. Use words that newcomers can use without the barrier of enculturation to Wikipedia jargon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm basically on-board with this, but agree with the objections that criteria need to be clear-cut. So, to reiterate the "whose turn is it?" theme I talked about earlier (see the picture of the chess clock, above), I suggest:
      • A draft exists in exactly one of two states (not counting rejected). It's either waiting-for-review, or work-in-progress.
      • As soon as a new draft is created, the state is work-in-progress. When it's submitted (or re-submitted), the state becomes waiting-for-review. When a draft is declined, the state changes back to work-in-progress.
      • The draft template should prominently display both the current state and the amount of time since it most recently entered that state.
      • The current state and clock should be easily parsable, so people can write tools to do useful things. Useful things might be alerting the author that they're running out of time, possibly offering them the option of moving the draft back into their user space. Or alerting the review team that they're falling behind on processing the queue. Or tagging a stale draft for G13.
      • Once you've got that basic architecture in place, you could imagine all sorts of incremental improvements. Maybe a "I want more time" button. Anybody can click it to reset the clock back to zero. If you want, think of that as faking a state transition. People do that anyway by making a pro-forma edit; this just makes it explicit. Or, a way for somebody to edit a work-in-progress draft and explicitly request that the clock NOT be reset. You might want to do this if you're removing a copyvio or BLP violation, for example. Bot edits, of course, would not reset the clock.
      • The important thing here is that the state and clock are explicit. No fuzziness about "good-faith edits" or "content edits" vs "maintenance edits". This provides a clean separation between the logic that decides what state transitions to perform, vs the logic that takes actions based on those states. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @RoySmith: RE "I want more time" please review {{AfC postpone G13}} which resets the clock for annother 6 months. Hasteur (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, I've been around for a while, and didn't even know that template existed. My guess is essentially none of our draft authors do either. Having a button right up there on the AfD template that said, "Click me for more time" would be more obvious. And, as I said, having specific, well-defined, states would make it easier for people to write better tools. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose both (but for a strange reason): I will concede that drafts that are waiting for AFC to review them that are nearing the 6 month unedited mark should not be G13, but we don't need a hard and fast rule to do that. I am invisioning a new BRFA that will modify Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 2 that will put an {{AFC comment}} in indicating that the page was in danger of being G13ed, but had an active submission template on it, thereby kicking the G13 down the road (from the bot's perspective). I opposed the inclusion of maintenance edits into G13 because it took the criteria from being 100% objective (it either has or has not been edited in the past 6 months) to a judgement call that invites wiggle room. Should Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 14 be approved, I intend to uphold the more strict interpertation with the bot and let editors make the judgement calls (and the responsibility for them). Hasteur (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like some of this proposal, but only with modifications:
      • First of all, I think the result of this discussion should be formally proposed at WT:CSD and gain consensus there, before the actual G13 criterion text is modified.
      • Secondly, I think that a review whose outcome is "Decline" should reset the G13 clock, because the draft author ought to read the decline reasons and any feedback, and have time to edit to address them.
      • Thirdly I agree that the clock should be, in effect, suspended while a draft has been submitted for review and is awaiting review. It is not reasonable for an editor to be told 'wait patiently" only to have the draft deleted because there was too large a backlog of drafts. I understand that this has not happened, and cannot happen for some time even if all reviewing stops, but the policy should be made clear. I would welcome an improved version of HasteurBot, and that might help avoid any such issue occurring, but I think it is better to spell out the procedures clearly.
      • Fourthly, I like the idea of states, but I would define them slightly differently than RoySmith. I think any AfC draft should be considered to be in one of the following states:
        • a) Never submitted for review;
        • b) submitted and awaiting review;
        • c) declined, awaiting further edits and re-submission; and
        • d) rejected.
    In state b (awaiting review) G13 would not apply. The AfC template should ideally explicitly display one of these states. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @DESiegel: With respect, to your second modification, when the AFC reviewer declines the submission the clock is automatically reset because the decline constitutes a page edit by an editor. As to your fourth point, States C and D are effectively the same. I do agree that if a page is in state B, the G13 rule should be suspended, but this can be taken care of by a bot task to go through and add a AFC comment indicating the page was eligible for G13, but has been bumped because it was still awaiting review. Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hasteur Under current policy, you are correct that a decline causes an edit which resets the g13 clock, but elsewhere in this thread and in discussions on WT:CSD it has been suggested that "maintenance" edits, specifically including decline notices, should not reset the clock, so I wanted to make clear my view that a decline should reset the clock. In short my second point is arguing for the retention of the current procedure, and against a change in that regard. In my view state c (declined) and state d (rejected) are different in several ways. I think that a reject should arguably not reset the clock, as a reject says that the draft is hopeless and there is nothing for the submitting editor to do, but I wouldn't feel strongly if it did reset the clock. In any case if the AfC templates are to explicitly display a state indicator, c and d should display differently. Have I clarified my comments helpfully? DES

    (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and without an explicit statement in the CSD text, some editors may ignore a bot comment when manually tagging for G13, and some admins may also ignore such an edit when doing G13 deletions. It is better to nail down the procedure, in muy view. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @DESiegel: Interesting fact: The Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions and Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions are populated by {{AFC submission/draft}} and {{AFC submission/declined}} as far as I can tell. Both of those templates don't have exclusions for the discretionary level. As such, the only way for someone to find these drafts that aren't in those tracking categories would be a back end query for all the draft pages and evaluating everything. While consensus may authorize a more loose interpertation, none of the categories actually support that Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm game for anything that lessens the scope of G13, but I oppose anything that broadens it even in the slightest. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the exceptions but the "staleness clock" should apply from when the draft was last declined and/or significant edit, whichever is later. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • QEDK what defines a "significant" edit, and in particular, how should a bot be able to distinguish one? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @DESiegel: I don't know why a bot needs to distinguish it necessarily? Admins perform the deletions afterall, a significant edit is simply where the version that is resubmitted is not identical to one that was submitted previously (anyone gaming the caveat is pointless since speedy deletion is via discretion of the deleting admin). The AFCH helper tool can be modified to add a magic keyword for declines and the bot can deal with it. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • QEDK When G13 was first implemented, pretty much all tags were placed by a bot. There have been several such bots run over the years. I believe that none is running now, but one is being proposed, as discussed just a bit above in this thread. Moreover, the category Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions is, as Hastur points out above, populated by AfC templates. Unless the AfC Script, templates, and proposed bots vcan detect what a "significant" edit is, neither the category nor any bot-placed CSD tags for G13 will match the modified CSD, which will make it much harder to find and tag G13s, even manually. So any rule should be one whoich can be in some way implemented by a bot or a script. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Frank marine

    I have copied over this discussion that was not complete. I was told that this is what to do if I believe that the discussion was not finished, which I believe it was not. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The user in question has only been editing articles related to the Thai Army, leading me to suspect a WP:COI. I am not reporting the user to the COI noticeboard as I believe there are problems elsewhere in the user's contributions. Firstly, the user does not have a WP:CIR and no communication with others makes it hard to determine what the user is doing, as evidenced by this warning. I am a NPR and have come across two of the user's articles. One of them (now speedy deleted) was a clear copyright violation, even after warning in the past (User talk:Frank marine#Speedy deletion nomination of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand)). Also see the revision history of 1st Field Artillery Regiment, King's Guard (Thailand) for more evidence. The user has repetitively used writing from another Wikipedia article ([5], [6] among others) without attribution to the article's history even after warning (see User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution and User talk:Frank marine#Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (3rd request) from Diannaa).

    You will also notice an incompetence in image copyrighting (I'm not too familiar with this, so please forgive any mistakes I make). Dozens of notices of image copyright problems can be seen on the user's talk page, to which the user continues to upload more images, without concern to the other ones.

    I hope this is sufficient information for you to understand the user's actions. For a user with over 1 thousand edits, I would expect change in the user's behaviour in articles, but problems still continue to appear. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I get that the user in question seems to have a narrow, single-minded focus/interest in editing, and that they're evincing a variety of problems, but I'm not following where the COI connection is. Could you elaborate on that a little bit? Grandpallama (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI is only a suspicion. It comes from the fact that the user has only edited Thai Army related articles, as said above. This implies to me that the user, before they started editing Wikipedia, was connected with the subject and they clearly knew what they were going to edit prior to editing. I don’t know about others’ experience with new users, but for me, new users might edit and discuss a variety of things before specialising in a specific area (in this case of not WP:PAID or COI users). Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you suspect the editor was paid to edit Thai army articles, or works in the army's PR office, it's hard to see that as a COI. Many veterans are interested in military subjects, including the history and nature of their own armed forces, and bring a significant amount of personal knowledge to the subject. That can easily lead to POV edits or unsourced (or even sourced) original research, but COI feels like a bridge too far (to use my own military reference!) in the absence of edits that seem unduly promotional. Their editing certainly suggests that English is a second language. Grandpallama (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I second Grandpallama's opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found the exact opposite to be true. New Users, in my experience, will start in a very specific topic and then branch out. --Darth Mike(talk) 17:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Aright, I think we have concluded that there is no COI. Please can we discuss the other issues? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 06:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Please strike the remarks you no longer wish us to address. It's not 100% clear what else you're talking about. Buffs (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
     Done a little while ago. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks EdJohnston for the comment. What would you say the point is at which users may get blocked for not communicating? To me, it seems that there has been countless attempts at communicating so we must be fairly near that point? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Left a warning for Frank marine on his talk page. Let me know if you see any more image uploads where there is no effort at all to get the licensing right, or if you notice more posting of copyrighted material to articles. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston:@Willbb234: His latest image upload is an unambiguous copyright violation of this [7]. I've tagged it as such. He also tags every single one of his edits as "minor". Why, again, are we refusing to block him? OrgoneBox (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Frank marine's last image upload was at 14:26 on 10 October, while my warning was left on his talk page at 15:31 on that date. You should be watching out for new violations after the date of my warning, not old violations. For him to mark his edits as 'minor' is annoying, and it might be taken into account, but it is not forbidden by policy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: I don't think this is a question that new violations may appear if the user continues to upload images. By the number of warnings, if the user continues to upload images, then there will be copyright violations. Regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Unclear what you are saying. Feel free to notify me directly if you see either a new unlicensed upload, or a new copyright violation being added to any article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't understand why you need "just one more" problem before blocking him. This person has been warned ad nauseum about his multitudes of issues. He marks every single edit "minor", which is not just annoying, but misleading and therefore disruptive. He has repeatedly uploaded copyvio images and inserted unattributed paragraphs. @Diannaa: and @Paul 012: have made three requests for him to stop with the unattributed paragagraphs going back to the springtime. He never writes edit summaries, which he's also been warned about. He hasn't responded to anything on his talk page ever, even after you posted your warning, to give any indication he is capable of understanding or cares. This is cut and dry WP:COMPETENCE and he's wasting the time of volunteers by us having to monitor him for these repeated copyright violations. OrgoneBox (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @EdJohnston: pinging, as OrgoneBox has explained it much better. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 09:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Need to retrieve deleted file

    This is a very mundane, technical request, but I was wondering if an administrator could take a look at the deleted file revisions at File:Seal of Nashville, Tennessee.png, and if there is an older, high-resolution version, please upload it over the current file on Commons. If I remember correctly, there used to be a high resolution version that was replaced with a low resolution version for copyright reasons. Since then, it was discovered that the image is actually public domain, so the low-resolution version was moved to Commons. Thanks for your help! Kaldari (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kaldari: I don't think what we have is any better, take a look at File:20191009-Temporary-Seal of Nashville, Tennessee.png. — xaosflux Talk 23:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: Guess I remembered wrong. Thanks for checking for me! Kaldari (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: After doing some wiki archaeology, it looks like the original high-resolution version actually lived at File:Nashvilleseal.png. Could you restore that one for me? Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kaldari: Error undeleting file: Cannot undelete file revision with timestamp 2007-01-24T23:13:56: File was missing before deletion. — xaosflux Talk 20:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    2018-03-30T01:09:00 Fastily deleted page File:Nashvilleseal.png (G8: Redirect to a deleted or non-existent page)
2018-03-29T19:59:17 Illegitimate Barrister moved page File:Nashvilleseal.png to File:Seal of Nashville, Tennessee.png
2011-12-31T07:44:45 Skier Dude deleted page File:Nashvilleseal.png (Deleted old revision 20071030104027!Nashvilleseal.png: Reduce supplied)
    Log above. — xaosflux Talk 20:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to take on a little art project, there is a much higher resolution black and white version that you could start from here. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting an administrator to strike vote, and possibly comment, over at Shinhan Bank Canada deletion discussion

    Can I please request an administrator's assistance in striking the keep vote of a user over on the Shinhan Bank Canada deletion discussion page? While ostensibly good intentioned, the pages linked do not in any way substantiate his or her argument and aren't even close to related to the discussion at hand. In this way, the comment is seen as inherently disruptive to the discussion. One of the links is even spammy in nature. --Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar to the above mentioned, can I also request an administrator look into the Bridgewater Bank deletion discussion page whereby a user, while ostensibly good intentioned, has posted information that is seen as disruptive to the discussion by confusing Bridgewater Bank with a Nasdaq-listed Bridgewater Bancshares? A simple Google web search will confirm easily the two companies aren't even tangentially related. At the same time, the referenced links are somewhat, if not entirely, spammy in nature promoting stock pump-and-dump-type articles. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this an acceptable link? News article linking to hate site with outing/death threats

    This recent news piece from Haaretz (use on Wikipedia) has some major problems which make me wonder if it is an acceptable link on Wikipedia, either as an external link (WP:EL) or as a reliable source (WP:RS). Since this concerns more than just reliability, and involves possible issues with WP:BLP/WP:OUTING and is has be used in context that is relevant to this recent ArbCom ruling (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations). One one hand, it is a news piece from a generally reliable newspaper. On another, it has the following red flags: 1) as the article admits, it is significantly based on an account by a single Wikipedia editor, User:Icewhiz, who shortly before its publication was indef banned for off-wiki harassment (his Twitter account used for said harassment was also suspended, but apparently he managed to air several of his grievances out in said newspaper piece). 2) The article directly links to an article on a hate site, Encyclopedia Dramatica, which contains WP:OUTING information for several editors as well as death threats (and in general, journalism that treats ED as a source is hardly high caliber...). 3) The article mentions at least two Wikipedians by name (disclaimer: including myself; I was in fact interviewed for this piece but I did not authorize it and it gets me wrong in several places), through both me and the other editor AFAIK have disclosed their name on English Wikipedia (I mean, look at my sig...). I am not concerned about myself much, but the other named Wikipedian, User:Halibutt, whom some of you may know from a number of Wikimanias and such (he was a spokeperson for Polish WMF chapter) has recently passed away, and the article insinuates he added an antisemitic hoax to Wikipedia (ironically, Halibutt disclosed on Wikipedia on his userpage that he was a Polish Jew...). Nonetheless, deceased individuals are still protected by BLP (see WP:BDP). So far Halibutt has been mentioned by name in at least two places, see diffs ([8], [9]). While there is an ongoing discussion on those article talks about how, if at all, to discuss the relevant hoax on Wikipedia in article content, it is worth noting this can be done through other reliable sources which picked up this story but decided to omit the parts about particular editors, nor link to ED (ex. [10]), so it is not like by banning this particular EL to Haaretz version we would deprive ourselves of a source. I do think that due to the red flags raised above, this particular Haaretz source should not be allowed (i.e. it should be added to spamlist or such, at least until they remove the direct link to ED page with death threats and such). Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Icewhiz left an account of what transpired prior to the Haaretz article on a user page here. As far as exposing the Warsaw death camp as a myth goes, the donkey work was done by Zygmunt Walkowski, whose work is described in a May 2019 London Review of Books article which Icewhiz read. The talkpage of the Warsaw concentration camp article shows in several sections that the factuality of there having been a gas chamber there was, contrary to the impression given in the Haaretz article, questioned several times.     ←   ZScarpia   11:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting for the fourth time (after User_talk:Jimbo_Wales, Talk:Reliability of Wikipedia and Talk:Warsaw concentration camp) the list of outlets that picked up the story (not including Algemeiner and JNS via syndication).[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] This piece is clearly WP:DUE, WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) article: "The page was written in August 2004 by the late Wikipedia editor Krzysztof Machocki, a spokesperson for the Polish branch of Wikimedia, and was completely rewritten this August. The hoax was discovered by an Israeli editor with the username Icewhiz who rewrote the article to reflect the truth."
    The hoax had long been suspected to be such, but was actually proved to be a falacy by Zygmunt Walkowski, whose work, which took seven years, was described in the LRB article read by Icewhiz, allowing him to modify the Wikipedia article. We're not obliged to use everything we can source and we're not obliged to treat the contents of the Haaretz article as fact, rather than claims, when we have contrary evidence to hand.
    In the last week, it has been made public that, after years of suspicion, research done at King’s College London has shown that much of the published work of Hans Eysenck was unsafe. When the details come out and Wikipedia updated accordingly, hopefully editors won't be making grandiose claims to have uncovered hoaxes. And hopefully they won't be persuading newspapers to run stories about how teams of Eysenckists have been undermining the encyclopaedia.
        ←   ZScarpia   21:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. There were at least two sources that contradict Trzcińska that were known to Wikipedians as early as 2003, but they were either unused or under-used. François Robere (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    See what I wrote about the article's talkpage in my first comment [11:58, 13 October 2019]. Would those two sources be ones used by K.e.coffman in the major editing he did to the article earlier this year before Icewhiz became involved?     ←   ZScarpia   10:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Piotrus is in conflict of interest: he is roasted by article. Article uses two respectable historians as sources. Piotrus is shouting conspiracy on Wiki: 1. [20]: "User:Icewhiz who co-authored this piece in which he harasses a number of editors" when Haaretz[21] lists "Omer Benjakob" single author. 2. [22]: "co-authored", "slanders", "hack piece". 3. [23]: "getting the hack who wrote this to include links": shouting that BLP journalist is a "hack". Does Wiki accept users who shout conspiracy of secret unnamed authors of newspaper articles ? 176.221.108.218 (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    At @Banana Republic: Piotrus shouts conspiracy louder: [24] "The Haaretz article contains many factual errors as well as information that can be seen as harassing some editors; it is de facto a revenge piece by an editor banned for harassment.". Piotrus shouts one author: Wiki editor but not named author. Maybe Piotrus afraid of coverage of Piotrus ? 176.221.108.218 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • On the general question: can we use a source from a normally good RS that links to sites that WP would never link to, the answer is yes: We cannot control what external sites link to, and even sites like NYTimes and BBC will link to material we would never include. As long as we treat the RS content as appropriate under WP policy. If the source out's a WP editor, the question to ask if it is necessary in the WP coverage of that topic to even include mention of the editor (or can you just use "a WP editor" instead). This is the same concept that applies at BLP and other core policies. Now, that said, if it is the case that an article outs a WP editor (who has not outed themselves on WP before), this should 100% not be considered an on-wiki outing, and all editors are expected to respect the editor's option not to out themselves on WP, even if the outing from the RS is quite visible. --Masem (t) 14:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No The only thing to do over here is to restrict the OP, a disgraced ex-admin, from flagrantly violating WP:COI, to remove material critical of him. ∯WBGconverse 15:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't go that far. I understand Piotrus's position - he believes he was misquoted, and is trying to defend himself from what he feels is unjustified public exposure. But fighting to suppress the story on Wikipedia isn't the way: it's a real story, it's sourced well enough, is supported by RS, and was picked up by enough outlets to justify WP:DUE. And yes, there's an obvious COI here as well, which you should at least declare. If you feel your version wasn't given enough exposure, then instead of trying to suppress this story, find somewhere to publicize yours. François Robere (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I admit that I did not fully read each and every word of the Haaretz article. However, I now noticed that the editor who started this thread, User:Piotrus, is specifically mentioned at the bottom of the Haaretz article, and not in the best of light. This may explain his behavior of throwing a boatload of supposed violations of Wikipedia policies in the hope that something sticks. Of course, all his allegations of violations of Wikipedia policies are bogus. This thread should be closed as WP:BOOMERANG. Banana Republic (talk) 00:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Banana Republic: I think it's important to AGF here. If you've ever spoken to the press, you know that it's pretty common for reporters to get things wrong - quotes that end up subtly different in ways that change the meaning of what you had to say, or context ends up getting things wrong. The press is particularly bad at getting Wikipedia right - I think Stephen Harrison may be the only journalist who gets the community right most of the time, and he does it by combining a pretty decent understands of the community with a lot of work talking to people. So it doesn't take my AGF to conclude that Piotrus feels misrepresented in this piece.
    On Wikipedia, if you accuse someone of something you can't back up, we call it casting aspersions (and doing so isn't acceptable. But if there's a news story accusing you of misdeeds, can we link to it? Even if it may be incorrect? The accusations of acting in bad faith against Piotrus here, the tone of the response, seems to support his fear that the story can be used to discredit him.
    Secondly, there's our OUTing policy. A few months ago, someone was blocked for asking two WMF staffers whether Twitter accounts in their real names were theirs. It's no secret who the WMF staffers are on Wikipedia, but at least one of them doesn't seem to have explicitly added a link from their volunteer account to their work account. So it doesn't matter if Halibutt linked his pl account to his real name - if he didn't connect his en account, this could easily fall afoul of our OUTing policy. Now quite frankly, the way the policy was interpreted in that case makes me profoundly uncomfortable, but that application of policy was supported by various admins. This is different, and there are real encyclopeadic interests in using the article as a source. But given the outing policy, given BLP, given a variety of things, it's more than reasonable to ask where the line is. Guettarda (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these are reasons to prohibit using it as a source in an article. – Levivich 03:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guettarda:, I would advise not to repeat the bogus claims of Piotrus. There are no WP:BLP concerns when the person has been dead for 21 months, and you really need to drop the WP:OUTING concerns when the person outed himself. Once a person outs himself, they are out. You cannot apply the laughable argument that if they only outed themselves on the Polish Wikipedia, it does not count in the English Wikipedia. The author of the article in question can and should do his diligent research to find any information he can. Banana Republic (talk) 03:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've already noted in my op post, BLP does apply to recently deceased (WP:BDP). Please familiarize yourself with our policies before calling someone else argument bogus. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Banana Republic: WP:BDP does say that it may apply up to two years, so you're wrong on that one. As for the OUTing claim - see this discussion. What Starship.paint was blocked for was not that far adjacent to this. I'm glad that after only a few months of active editing that you're committed enough to the project that you'd want to weight in here, but if you're going to make such broad proclamations about what policy says and how it is applied, you need to do a better job of studying policy. And please, stop assuming the worst about your fellow editors. WP:AGF is a core policy for a reason - it's hard to communicate effectively with someone who you can't see, where there's no vocal inflection, and where you don't know their motivations. Assuming good faith is hard, but at the very least you need to make sure that you aren't assuming bad faith on the part of another. Guettarda (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure why you're having difficulties with the application of WP:BLP to the recently deceased. WP:BDP is pretty clear.
    1. Only a small portion of WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased. If a person's name is mentioned by WP:RS then even WP:BLP allows usage of the name on Wikipedia, so it is definitely allowed for the deceased.
    2. After 21 months, the death is not recent and comes very close to completely falling outside WP:BDP.
    Banana Republic (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't correct that BLP allows the mention of a name just because it's mention by RS. Actually WP:BLPPRIVACY specifically requires that such details need to be "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" before they are allowed. While the specific section only mentions full names, it applies to a person's name when they are primarily notable under a pseudonym. A common case where this arises is pornographic video actors. I do agree that 21 months is at the tail end, but as it's still with the 2 years, we should consider BLP applies, especially for someone who apparently isn't notable. In addition, as a general principle, if someone is non notable we always have to consider whether it's useful or not to mention their name especially in BLP cases (and I'm including BDP here). While completionists feel we should always include the name, it's actually fairly common we make the decision not to include the name if it doesn't add the much. That said, it's not clear to me anyone is proposing the addition of the name anywhere. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The name adds quite a bit. A good part of the reason that the hoax remained on Wikipedia for 15 years is that the editor who inserted it was a very well respected member of the Wikipedia community. Banana Republic (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Banana Republic: - please take the time to familiarise yourself with the WP:OUTING policy. Learn from my mistake so you won’t make it yourself. It’s not pleasant, to say the least, to learn it when you’re indefinitely blocked with no talk page access. If you don’t understand it, ask around here, the admins can advise you. starship.paint (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the wrong place to discuss it but you've provided no coherent explanation for why "the name adds quite a bit". The editor was a well respected member of the Wikipedia community under whatever their username was. It does not explain why their real name adds anything. If as Starship.paint implies, the name wasn't even known here, your explanation makes even less sense. Of course, even the editor being a respected member of the wikipedia community does not mean their username means much. 99.999% of readers are not going to recognise any username. So there needs to be some explanation of why "A respected editor, Banana Republic, added 'bananas taste good' to the article on bananas" adds a lot more than "A respected editor added 'bananas taste good' to the article on bananas". Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The article about the Warsaw concentration camp does not need to name the editor who inserted the hoax into Wikipedia. However, the article Reliability of Wikipedia does need to name the editor who inserted the hoax, because it was inserted by a well respected editor, and not an ordinary troll. This is to say that even well respected editors can enter wrong information into Wikipedia, and that's what the article Reliability of Wikipedia is about.
    This is similar to how the article John Siegenthaler does not name the person who inserted the hoax into the article, but the article Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident does. Banana Republic (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Without reviewing the articles that are specifically about Wikipedia, I would be highly certain that if the editor(s) are not blue-linked notable, there is zero need to actually name an editor. EG, the editor that uploaded the Monkey selfie copyright dispute is not named. --Masem (t) 16:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guettarda: I just want to clarify that I am not overly concerned about being misquoted, it is mildly annoying but that's about it, and so far nobody mentioned anything concerning me in Wikipedia. I wasn't going to bring this here except as noted in the diffs, Banana Republic has decided to include User:Halibutt's name in some articles, and since our departed colleague cannot defend himself, I thought to raise it here as a BDP issue. (I will also note that nobody has so far restored that version, so it is probably fine, through again given this is an admin noticeboard, I want to mention WP:OVERSIGHT as an option to consider for those diffs). The other aspect is that the said news piece links directly to the hate site with outing information and death treats, so since there are other news stories of this in other venues that do not link to the hate site, I wonder if we can get community consensus to use those other news pieces as reference and not this, as to WP:DFTT/WP:DENY the Encyclopedia Dramatica hate site. In particular, nothing in that Haaretz piece seems relevant or due to Wikipedia - the WCC hoax story can be document sufficiently with other reliable news pieces that Francois and others have found. So the issue is, do we have a preference here for news pieces that do not link to hate sites or not, when such news pieces seem otherwise pretty comparable with regards to the otherwise encyclopedic facts we want to reference? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Haaretz article is the first, and most in-depth story about the hoax, and therefore the most appropriate one to use as a reference. The other reliable news pieces that Francois and others have found are either not in English, twitter posts of non-verified accounts, or YouTube videos.
    You really should drop your objection to the use of Haaretz as a reference, because you have a conflict of interest in that objection. Being mentioned in that article, in a not so good way, makes it look like your objections are all about yourself. Banana Republic (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. For example, the Israel Broadcasting Corporation piece I pointed to, itself, attributed the Haaretz article. El_C 15:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Banana Republic: I'm not quite sure why this is something you've only "now noticed". You didn't have to read the source. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus specifically said "The article mentions at least two Wikipedians by name (disclaimer: including myself; I was in fact interviewed for this piece but I did not authorize it and it gets me wrong in several places)". I was aware they were mentioned in that source because I read their comment telling us they were when opening this thread, before you replied, as hopefully most participants of this thread. Sure their opening comment was long, but I think if you're going to make a big deal over a COI, you should at least read their comment to see if they did the correct thing, which they did, and disclosed their possible COI. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its an RS. The fact that Icewhiz appears to be a significant source for it is a factor that can be considered in the weighting, as we would consider the weighting with any source, but it is a mainstream source, and linking is acceptable. How it should be weighted is a content question for talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that Icewhiz appears to be a significant source for it is a factor that can be considered in the weighting - How precisely? ∯WBGconverse 17:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Icewhiz has just been banned for rather underhand behaviour, it's probably not a great time to be asking that question. You might also like to consider whether there's any truth in the description of Icewhiz's activities in this Mint Press article. For example: "In addition to his efforts to remove information from Wikipedia articles that paint Israel’s military occupation of Palestine in a critical light, Icewhiz also attempted to alter the article on Palestinian nurse Razan al-Najjar, who was killed by an Israeli sniper during the Great Return March protests in the Gaza Strip last year, despite clearly wearing a vest marking her as a medic. Icewhiz added a video of al-Najjar that was later found to have been heavily edited and promoted by the Israel Defense Force as a means of justifying her death and subsequently re-edited the article to promote the IDF interpretation of the video after another editor included information critical of the IDF’s use of the doctored video. Icewhiz also edited the article on Razan al-Najjar to claim that she was “allegedly shot” by the IDF, despite the fact that there has been no disputing the IDF’s responsibility for her death, even from Israel’s government."     ←   ZScarpia   01:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are joking, I guess. ∯WBGconverse 15:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey can someone remind me, Mint Press is the paper of record for which country again? – Levivich 03:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    If there are news stories about this that do not link to hate sites or such, using them instead of the original piece may be a better choice. Also, User:Winged Blades of Godric should adhere to our civility and no personal attacks policies. - Darwinek (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Most RSes, for a story like this, will cover in in a manner that starts "In a report by Haaretz..." to give the authoring credit. It makes no sense not to the use the original source here to avoid the telephone game of when other sources re-report it, even if the original source links to the questionable sites. --Masem (t) 21:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this uncivil? It certainly is incendiary.

    I'm not sure if this is the proper place to post this, but considering there was a discussion less than a month ago about User:Incnis Mrsi, it seems worthy to me.

    I was doing a series of tautological edits, when Incnis Mrsi wikihounded me on three unrelated pages discussed at this edit warring arbitration page, insinuating I had an "agenda" and that I was a "stalker"[26]. That seems uncivil to me, definitely incendiary, and definitely baiting. This seems to be further proof that the uncivil behavior per WP:AGF continues. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, an agenda – underwater (and other) tunnels exist too. A diff where the word “stalker” was directed at Leitmotiv or it did not happen. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I need to comment to you much beyond this, but starting a conversation with a link to a stalker page on my very own talk page that is discussing my edits, would seem to be directed at me. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What now? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see, yeah I'm clearly unfamiliar with the term. You are self-celebrating the stalker term and it wasn't directed at me. Got it. Still my point stands: wikihounding, edit-warring, and using baiting language on my own talk page, and that my personal editing interests are an agenda (a loaded-term, if we are to be honest with ourselves). Leitmotiv (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Is anything wrong with calling ongoing mass mangling of articles in disregard of objections an agenda? Nobody authorized the user to do this stuff, and WP:BRD is expectedly in action. There are several kinds of tunnels. An immersed tube is no less a tunnel than an underground tunnel. Also, some tunnels have sections protruding above the ground. Readers of Wikipedia should not be forced to make guesswork, especially if it’s only one user who wishes so. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already addressed most of this in a previous comment. However, I do find it interesting that only now are you willing to discuss the technicalities of "underground tunnel" but ignored that opportunity on my talk page when I pinged you [27].
    Only now? Again, the discussion for Gun-type fission weapon (where underwater vs underground ambiguity was brought to attention) was started at 19:06 UTC. Five minutes before Leitmotiv blackmailed me with an edit summary, 41 minutes before Leitmotiv ran to AN/EW, and 1h 25m before beginning of this thread. Moreover, some 23 hours earlier I suggested the user to “cease… drive-by replacements” and encouraged him to edit out whichever is truly redundant. Can anybody instruct Leitmotiv, at last, to stop wasting resources of other Wikipedians on pointless lawyering? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Assume good faith sir. I'm not responsible for your actions that result in a warning for edit warring. If you come on to my talk page, I assume you intend to fix a problem with me directly, instead you ignored me. chek chek chek Leitmotiv (talk)!

    Addendum: Incnis Mrsi is also editing my personal comments on the edit-warring discussion and disingenuously calling my edits slander. I believe editing another user's comments is generally not permitted, even if they are right. In this particular case it wasn't a personal attack or slander, but misidentifying his previous blocking as a ban, which somehow was interpreted as a personal attack. Rather than correct the mistake, he hid that potential information altogether. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing calumny (which may also be called slander) is hopefully a legitimate action. As there are no templates {{calumny}} or {{calumny removed}}, another one was used. Also note the sequence of Leitmotiv’s actions:
    1. 19:11 UTC – tries to intimidate me with an edit summary,
    2. 19:17 UTC – posts a reply in talk:Gun-type fission weapon‎‎ #Operation Nougat.
    3. 19:57 UTC – catches me on 3RR without a talk-page activity during those forty minutes.
    Moreover, Leitmotiv supplied an irrelevant tangent hoping to deter criticism. But attempts to intimidate me here on en.Wikipedia are not cost-effective. Let Leitmotiv learn on own mistakes. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Occam's Razor. You can call it slander or calumny, or a conspiracy for all I care, but it was simply a case of transposing "block" with "ban". Either way, the end result is the same: you were recently reviewed for uncivil actions and editing another's comments whether you think it to be a slander against you or not, is more uncivil and disrespectful behavior. Your comments that I have an "anti-underground agenda" is incendiary, confrontational, baiting, and not assuming good faith. In fact, I had to make a new rule for my talk page because you wouldn't respond to me, which in a roundabout way, is also not being civil in the most basic of ways: communication - meaning you're not looking to solve the perceived problem, only throw mud and wikihound. Now that I think of it, please assume good faith in my blunder of mistaking a block for a ban. I mean, I certainly didn't get that you were directly outing yourself as a stalker on my talk page. I assumed you were talking about me in some manner because of the language you used. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The user who dismissed feedback and resorted to intimidation in edit summaries, all within the last 40 hours, feels now wronged by alleged “mud and wikihound”. Not worthy any further analysis and any more edit in this thread by me. The site has a thousand of admins to dispose of trash here – good luck. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Another fine example of civility. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Leitmotiv and Incnis Mrsi, both of you should be ashamed of yourselves for your unnecessarily combative behavior on full display here. This is a collaborative project. Please start acting that way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed that the only people who have commented in this section prior to your note was Leitmotiv and Incnis Mrsi; that's quite telling of their hostility. Incnis Mrsi's conduct problems are not limited to Leitmotiv or even the English Wikipedia, but I do believe here that both parties are at fault. Vermont (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It could also be that because the thread was neglected till now. Had it been nipped in the bud with a response early on... ...? I don't think my responses were the best, but marginally better. I felt forced to come here considering the edit warring from the other party and the past history. Sorry to bother you all. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism, or good edits? Help needed from the musically literate

    user:134.219.227.30 has made a series of changes to the categories of national anthems (see Special:Contributions/134.219.227.30). As someone who doesn't know the difference between, say F major and E flat major, I can't tell if this is right or wrong. Most of the ones I checked don't actually address the key at all. The Ecuadorian anthem does, but without a source.

    I'm musically illiterate, and I need help. Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Guettarda: Firstly, you must notify the IP on their talk page. I just did that for you.
    This is a tough one to judge. Musical compositions are easy to transpose between different keys, so there is no "correct" answer unless we know the key signature of the original recording (by the original composer). I am having a hard time finding much of that information. Having listened to a few recordings, some of the changes sound correct to me, but others sounded correct in the originally listed key signature (I am able to determine the key by listening). However, most of these recordings are unreliable, because I am not sure if they have been transposed from their original key (I have heard many songs played in different keys) or otherwise rearranged. It's not clear if the IP's edits were made because of this confusion or if they are simply unconstructive.
    Sadly, musical literacy does not help to assess these edits – only WP:V does and I am having a hard time with that. That said, unless sources can be found, I think it better to remove these categories altogether. ComplexRational (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @ComplexRational: Thanks - I don't know enough to know what I don't know. Guettarda (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have a lot of experience editing music articles, so correct me if I'm wrong, but the original score (the composer's written sheet music) should be in some specific key (the "original key"), although other versions may be in different keys. An RS should state what the original key was, and that's they key under which our article should be categorized. Listening to a recording and categorizing it based on what key we hear strikes me as original research. I went over to O Canada; it was categorized as E minor, with nothing about the key in the article (although one of the sources did have the information, stating it was G major. I added some prose cited to that source and changed the category to G major.) I agree with ComplexRational that no musical key category should be included at all, unless the key is stated in the article, properly cited. Where there are multiple versions in multiple keys, we should go with either the original or the most prevalent (I guess if there's a key conflict, that's a content dispute that can be discussed article by article). – Levivich 01:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Exactly, the original scores are in certain original keys, and those are the versions that should be cited if possible. Rearrangements and listening are not reliable (indeed, what we say based on what hear is unreliable even if it can be proven; I apologize if I did not make this clearer above), so only the original scores or descriptions thereof should be used as sources. Those can be checked on a case-by-case basis as you've done. ComplexRational (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I can help you out - I'm a classically trained piano player. The music I see ( which is CC licensed) shows up as being A flat major. Flats are pretty easy, just use the mnemonic "Farmer Brown Eats All Day Getting Chubby" , each letter is the key for each flat, (e.g 1 flat is "Farmer" ("F Major"), two flats are ("Farmer" "Brown" - so it's Bb major) ..etc...
    That would put this song ,per the sheet music, into Ab major as it has 4 flats ("Farmer" "Brown" "Eats" "All" - Ab major )
    That said, this may not be the original music, and since I'm not familiar with the song, I wouldn't go as far as saying it's the original key, but it's the one that can be referenced! Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I've misunderstood something but I don't quite get why the original score takes precedence over everything else including other well cited scores or rearrangements. Especially in cases of a national anthem. For example, if the composer composed the anthem in B flat, but the government when selecting the composition to be their anthem decided to change it to C flat (whether working with the composer or just by themselves), and this is the score that they distributed to everyone and is in their regulations, and is the version nearly everyone who's heard the anthem including from the beginning heard and the fact that the original composer composed it in B flat is not even well known, I'm not sure why B flat gets precedence. Of course we should mention this detail of B flat if it can be sourced, but that seems about it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm aware, if we're talking about any countries anthem and a key signature is brought up, it should always be whatever the reliable source shows us. In the one I looked at, we had the original handwritten version and a printed version in the same key, Ab Major.

    Yes, anyone can re-arrange any song into different keys, and if there were other arrangements and they were reliable sourced, they should be recognized. Far as the category, by default it should go to the original key unless the title references a different singer or composer, and for that, again, whatever the reliable source says that key is, should be the recognized key. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 17:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    That's my point. It should be based on what reliable sources say for the anthem. It does not matter what the original key is, what matters is what the key for the current anthem. We should mention the original key if it can also be sourced, but there's absolutely no reason why it should take precedence as many replies here seem to imply. Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Cranbrook School, Sydney Alumni CUTPASTE move

    Can admin take a look at this? I'm not sure why Naddruf thought it was necessary to do a WP:CUTPASTE move when List of Old Boys of Cranbrook School, Sydney most likely could've just been WP:MOVEd to the new title instead. Now, it's not clear whether a HISTMERGE is needed because of the split page history, and, futhermore, Talk:List of Old Boys of Cranbrook School, Sydney is now an "orphan" talk page so to speak because of the "move". -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I unfucked it, since it's on my watchlist anyway. Restored the original page, moved it to List of Cranbrook School, Sydney alumni (no capital on alumni), and redirected the Alumni version. No histmerge needed. This did not need to be an AN discussion - you could've taken this to the editor's talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Premeditated Chaos. I thought it might just be a good-faith error that could require a HISTMERGE, but thanks for checking whether one was needed. I did ask the editor to clarify things on their user talk when I notified them of this discussion, but I guess I sort of put the cart before the horse in this case. My bad. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

    The Arbitration Committee is pleased to welcome the following editors to the functionary team:

    The Committee thanks the community and all candidates for helping to bring this process to a successful conclusion.

    The Committee also welcomes the following user back to the functionary team:

    The Committee also thanks Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for his long history of contributions to the functionary team. Timotheus Canens voluntarily resigned his CheckUser and Oversight permissions in September 2019.

    For the Arbitration Committee,

    Katietalk 15:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Candidates appointed

    An IP (62.248.181.187) who was causing problems at Constitution of Japan, is now doing the same at List of longest reigning monarchs, by promoting that Hirohito's reign as emperor ended in 1945, rather then 1989. Not sure how to handle this. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Compromised account?

    Just wondering whether MJV479 (talk · contribs) might potentially be compromised... just asking for a second opinion and additional sets of eyes. Thanks! GABgab 22:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I ran a checkuser and the account is not compromised. Unusual behavior for sure, but it looks like just playing around with WP:TW. ST47 (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes you would be correct, ST47 (talk · contribs). MJV479 (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    T-Mobile range block concerns

    According to Wikipedia:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users#Why are T-Mobile IPv6 users often blocked?, the best way to avoid the T-Mobile range block is to create an account. However, account creation from the entire range is also blocked (for the next year). Considering that there are 266 million smartphone users in the U.S. and 22% of them use T-Mobile, that seems to mean we are blocking 59 million people from editing or creating accounts (unless they connect via another means). Is that correct? Is the vandalism deterrence really worth that level of collateral damage? If there have been previous discussions about this, my apologies. All I could find was Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Dog and rapper vandal, which seems to be related. Kaldari (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @TonyBallioni, DeltaQuad, Oshwah, and Drmies: pinging some admins who have been involved in case they can share more info or opinions. Kaldari (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    They can just create it at home, which is why I’m not particularly concerned with the ACB aspect. I placed it for a year because it’d been blocked for well over a year straight by Graham87 and various other admins. The range is also regularly globally ACB’d for months on end, so even if we removed ACB, most of the time it wouldn’t have any impact on account creation. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what range you are talking about, but I have a good idea. This is definitely not the first time or the last I'll be pinged about it even though I only modified the block. DRV is a big issue and does require the ACB. It's not uncommon at ACC where I will actually tell people to find another range or use an ISP registered email because of how shared IPs can be. ACC isn't much of an option right now over the backlog, but i'm sure many people have access to other networks like Tony said. Maybe @TonyBallioni: we need to make a section on that page with a list of discussions about it and basically say we're aware? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    So is it essentially just one vandal that is necessitating the block? If so, is there any feature that could be added to AbuseFilter that would mitigate this as effectively as range blocking? For example, I don't know if you can specify IP ranges in AbuseFilter, but would that help? Kaldari (talk) 19:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, FYI, none of the people affected by this block are seeing the link to Wikipedia:Advice to T-Mobile IPv6 users (T233996), so improving that page won't actually help anything at the moment. Kaldari (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they are not the only master on that range. There have been 88 sets of checks ran on this /32 since the start of the year. I'd start listing off names people in the anti-vandal/anti-sock world would be very familiar with, but that'd be breaking the privacy policy. There are at least 3 major sockmasters on this range I recognize plus a ton of other people who have been socking (at least 56 of those checks are not related to any SPI page). This does not include all the vandalism that comes from range from either named accounts or IPs (because CUs don't even check that). It's been just about consistently blocked since December 2016 without accounts being created. So imagine without that block. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    The Daily Caller

    Just for information: Wikipedia has an article on The Daily Caller, which is sharply critical of that publication. A Charles Glasser, representing the Daily Caller, requested dispute resolution at DRN today. What they requested was to provide a statement to an unbiased Wikipedia editor to clarify a few matters, and then, after approval, to lock down the article to prevent vandalism (which would of course also lock down normal editing). I declined the DRN because this is not how Wikipedia works. I then saw that, about a year ago, The Daily Caller requested arbitration concerning a similar content dispute, and the request was also declined. I don't think that any further action is in order, but I thought that I should advise administrators here of this request that doesn't reflect how Wikipedia works. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional comment: we're not quite in legal threat territory, but assuming the DRN requester is being honest about who they say they are, they're an attorney (one who even has his own WP page) and they've been retained by The Daily Coller. Caution's in order. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Daily Caller article is not sharply critical of it. It looks like an article should for a "news outlet" that repeatedly publishes falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and does nothing of journalistic integrity and value. See similar types of "news" sites which happen to have Wiki articles that look similar: Gateway Pundit and Centre for Research on Globalization. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If the person is who he says he is: Charles Glasser. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Would now be a bad time to point out that that article was created by a user suspected of UPE? creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    UPE? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, should have linked the magic word. WP:UPE: undisclosed paid editing. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 20:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yeah, it did seem weird that a media company lawyer happened to have a Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear People: I apologize for not being conversant in the confusing means of getting content sorted out. And yes, while I am a lawyer (I defend reporters and publsihers, not sue them) this is not any kind of threat. It's a sincere call for help. And yes, when some rando created a page about me I remember something over my head about whether someone paid someone. Never happened, and sadly, this is the kind of ad hominem stuff I desperately hope to avoid. And with all due respect, Mr. Snooganssnoogans seems to have a personal stake in the matter. If "lock down" is the wrong phrase, I apologize. It just seems like someone here has it out for The Daily Caller for their own biases, there are errors and people of good will can sort this out. Suggestions as to process, please? 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Charles Glasser charlesglasseresq(at)gmail.com[reply]

    Another note that explains things. Snooganssnoogans said "Ah yeah, it did seem weird that a media company lawyer happened to have a Wikipedia page."(talk) 20:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC). That's just flat-out untrue. Many of my colleagues have WP pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Abrams; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodney_A._Smolla; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Goodale and many others. Could we please drop the paranoia and have a good faith conversation, and please, Mr User:Robert McClenon would you kindly advise me -- in layman's terms -- about the best approach procedurally? Thanks, 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Charles Glasser — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 (talk) [reply]
    All right, discussion it is. Your report at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard mentioned "efforts at correcting factual errors" which turned into an "edit war," but you haven't provided links to diffs supporting these claims, which means that most of us haven't the faintest idea what you're referring to. You also said that the issue was discussed on the talk page, but again, no links, no diffs, and your IP range hasn't edited any talk pages. Additionally, you've accused Snooganssnoogans of having a personal stake without any supporting evidence, which is pretty close to a personal attack. Your request at DRN implied that you wanted to get the page in a certain state and then "lock it down" to prevent vandalism; it is contrary to Wikipedia policy to let anyone, even the subject of a page, own a page, and again, the reference to vandalism implies that you see the edits by Snooganssnoogans and Markdask as vandalism. The correct procedure from here would be to have a reasoned discussion on the article talk page in which you comment on inaccuracies and provide reliable sources to support your statements.
    One last point: the fact that The Daily Caller has retained you for this matter is an action which is pretty much guaranteed to raise a lot of hackles here, since it suggests that they are considering legal action in order to make the page look the way they want. Even if that isn't the intent, there's a potential chilling effect merely from the involvement of a lawyer. creffett (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a couple recommendations. First you should register an account. Second you should read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide (which you'll be one step through because its first step is to register an account). This will help direct you towards how you can make specific edit requests at Talk:The Daily Caller and have it looked at by an editor. At this point, owing to the posting here I have no doubt that the talk page has more attention than before so any such requests will be given a fair, policy compliant, shot. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Scope of resysop RfC and community desysop question

    Coming here because I don't know where else to post, but I do think this needs review (not in a bad way) on the current resysop RfC, a new proposal has been made to have a community desysop process. My concern here is pretty simple: it's at the very bottom of a long page; the proposal was about inactivity resysops, and you're very likely to only attract a very limited audience. It's entirely possible to get 20 or so people in support of it and gain "consensus", but if it were advertised on it's own, you'd likely get a hundred people or more participating, with a much more divided split.

    I guess my question is for a wider audience: should this be included in this RfC, or is it an important enough and controversial enough topic that it should be closed and have someone propose it on it's own if they want to. My view is the latter, but I thought it important enough that getting a wider view was needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=921507900"