Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Template:Active editnotice

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

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

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 20 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requests for comment

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 75 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

new closer needed

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

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am involved in the underlying RfC, but my opinion on the issue is not particularly strong and I am putting on my closer hat now. Per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is construed broadly by the community". In the Rod Steiger RfC, you stated: [T]o the best of my knowledge (although I have not been involved in these discussions before) every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive. Although the underlying RfC was on a very specific question, your statement touches on the broader question of whether editors should be allowed to contest including an infobox in a particular article, a practice that you said risks becoming disruptive because the topic is settled. That makes you involved—construing the term broadly—because answering this RfC in the affirmative would significantly shift the burden against those contesting infoboxes in future discussions. That said, if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing. It wouldn't be a bad idea to disclose this at the RfC itself, and make sure that nobody there has any objections. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @BilledMammal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you can put aside your earlier assessment of consensus and only look at the arguments in this RfC, I don't see an issue with you closing; per WP:LOCALCON, I don't see lower level discussions as having any relevance to assessing the consensus of higher level discussions, so I can easily do so - consistent results at a lower level can indicate a WP:IDHT issue, but it can also indicate that a local consensus is out of step with broader community consensus. Either way, additional local discussions are unlikely to be productive, but a broader discussion might be.

Per your suggestion I'll leave a note at the RfC, and see if there are objections presented there or here. BilledMammal (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that !voting in an RfC necessarily equates to being too involved, but in this case, the nature of your !vote in the Steiger RfC was concerning enough to be a red flag. Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? That was wrong (and rather chilling) when you wrote it and is still wrong (and still chilling) now, as the current RfC makes rather clear. - SchroCat (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still your contention that “every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful. From this it is clear that the topic is settled, and insisting on RfC's for every article risks becoming disruptive”? No. I've only skimmed the RfC, but I see that while a majority have been successful a non-trivial number have not been - and the percentage that have not been has increased recently. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of my problem is that you said it in the first place. It was incorrect when you first said it and it comes across as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. As you're not an Admin, I'm also not sure that you can avoid WP:NACPIT and WP:BADNAC, both of which seem to suggest that controversial or non-obvious discussions are best left to Admins to close. - SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, any concern that WP:IDHT behavior is going on could be seen as an attempt to shut down those who hold a differing opinion. I won't close this discussion, though generally I don't think that raising concerns about conduct make an editor involved regarding content.

However, I reject BADNAC as an issue, both here and generally - I won't go into details in this discussion to keep matters on topic, but if you want to discuss please come to my talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was no IDHT behaviour, which was the huge flaw in your comment. You presumed that "every recent RfC on including an infobox has been successful", which was the flawed basis from which to make a judgement about thinking people were being disruptive. Your opinion that there was IDHT behaviour which was disruptive is digging the hole further: stop digging is my advice, as is your rejection of WP:BADNAC ("(especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial"), but thank you for saying you won't be closing the discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 53 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 51 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 51 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 49 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 39 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Initiated 35 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Total
CfD	9	38	47
TfD	0	2	2
MfD	0	3	3
FfD	0	4	4
RfD	4	35	39
AfD	0	2	2

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

(Initiated 52 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13#Genie (feral child and etc.

(Initiated 50 days ago on 9 April 2024) mwwv ^converse∫_edits 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 43 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

(Initiated 28 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 27 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 26 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Initiated 20 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by editor Maddy from Celeste. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)#Poll:_Should_the_article_include_a_political_position_for_the_Republican_Party_in_the_infobox?

(Initiated 15 days ago on 14 May 2024) The topic of this poll is contentious and has been the subject of dozens of talk page discussions over the past years, so I am requesting an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Cortador (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Improper use of rollback

An editor has made an improper use of rollback here [1]. This rollback did not revert vandalism to the Anzac Mounted Division article. The edits rollbacked were not accidental, they were properly cited and clearly set out the various names of the division, and therefore cannot be considered unhelpful to the encyclopedia. The editor who made the rollbacked edits was not a banned user. --Rskp (talk) 22:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the discussion above about "poking" bears, admins may care to review Talk:Anzac Mounted Division. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this matter is much bigger than an alleged illegal use of rollback. Among other things, it's a ridiculous ongoing edit war about whether we should write ANZAC or Anzac. The main editors involved are simply not engaging effectively. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rollback aspect is trivial; it merely enables one to save a few seconds when reverting. North8000 (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Illegal"? Which section of the Criminal Code was broken? You'll want to notify the legal team ... ES &L 23:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be more helpful to cut back on the snark and reply to the substance of the complaint. Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 23:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No...it would probably be best if editors did not make legal accusations that do not exist.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone have a look at the illegal roll back? --Rskp (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain how rollback abuse is not illegal?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was that even a rollback or just a simple revert? I can't tell. Anyone?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that last question. Rollback of 4 edits. [2]--Mark Miller (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a roll back. [[3]]. Your link is not to a roll back, it is to the last of a series of edits which added a full stop. --Rskp (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then...if yours was the rollback and the other editor just reverted...who is at fault for abusing their tools? Hmmmm. An explanation is now required.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Miller linked to the addition of a full stop. --Rskp (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is adding a full stop a roll back. --Rskp (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This would be snarking, I suppose becuase, I don't even have rollback privileges. What tha ...? Can someone focus on the illegal rollback linked in the first post of this discussion? --Rskp (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@North8000: The aspect is not trivial - per RBK, rollback is not to be used in situations like this.

I'm not quite sure how so many edits have been made under this header for irrelevant reasons. We know what RoslynSKP meant when they said illegal. There is no constructive reason to banter about the implication of legal action.

That being said, I'll raise this issue with Jim Sweeney. After that, I'll stop by that article's talk page. m.o.p 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad someone understands this. I am still waiting for an explanation as to where the actual rollback was, but I guess just not understanding is not an excuse for asking, but thanks. I'll just wait for my general sanctions to kick in over who I associate with on Wikipedia. Thanks you.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: This is a rollback. m.o.p 02:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I believe you. Now... why does the history not say it was a rollback? The only such rollback the history shows (and I admit my ignorance on this) is the last edit by Rskp? I am not trying to be an ass. I guess I am just one by nature and just need an explanation as to why, from my view of the situation, I only see a single rollback being done and not by the accused editor.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark Miller: That's what a rollback looks like. You can tell due to it being marked minor, the text linking to Help:Reverting, and the layout of the edit summary. Also, RoslynSKP physically couldn't have performed a rollback, as they don't have the necessary privilege. m.o.p 03:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time this editor has abused rollback privileges. See here [4] --Rskp (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, as someone with rollback...if the editor abused it, take it away. Of that much...I will agree. But will not support using language that exaggerates the situation in any way. Thanks m.o.p!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you have been unnecessarily harsh, and lacking a bit of good faith. Considering our community's diverse composition (amongst English-speaking peoples), it is geocentric to assume the context of ones prose, basing it on your norms alone. With so many soccer fans, and football too, as well as many other sports, "illegal use of" is nearly synonymous with "unsportsmanlike conduct" and proof that "illegal" is not exclusive to jurisprudence. Tighten up sir.—John Cline (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Third Transjordan attack [5] here for discussion and link to the first instance. --Rskp (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated impugning of reputation

This issue has been dragging on across multiple articles relating to the Palestinian theatre of WW1 for about a year now (possibly longer). As one of the coordinators of the military history project I've commented in a few of the relevant discussions, but haven't used the admin tools given that I've had lots of interactions with the editors involved. My consistent perception of this dispute is that its RoslynSKP against the world: he or she has their preferred names for articles and units (which tend to be a bit old-fashioned, and don't take into account the fact that there are often different terms used for the same thing in this particular topic) and consistently takes a combative attitude to try to enforce this. Calling improper use of rollback "Illegal" is typical of RoslynSKP's WP:BATTLEGROUND approach - instead of trying to reach consensus through calm discussion, he or she routinely escalates disputes. The various editors RoslynSKP fights with are all in good standing, and often seem pretty fed up with dealing with them. As the archive box at the top of Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division shows, RoslynSKP has tried to move this article to a different name five times since January 2012 (including a move review request) - four of these attempts have been made since mid-September this year. While Jim shouldn't have used rollback here, it's not hard to see how such stubborn and disruptive behaviour would wear down other editors. The fact that RoslynSKP dismissed the results of all the move requests by saying that "these issues have not been addressed, just swept under the carpet." a couple of days ago says it all really: this is not constructive conduct, and suggests a complete inability to drop the stick and move on over this issue. This thread appears to be an attempt to change the battleground and distract attention away from their prolonged disruptive conduct. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D your link regarding the carpet does not work. --Rskp (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while you're at it, could you please move Henry G. Chauvel back to Harry Chauvel for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just passing by ... Graham87 12:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nick-D on this. My view is that failure to achieve a positive result on one battleground (repeated RMs) has resulted in a move to a new battleground. At this rate, this is going to end up at ARBCOM and some editors are going to wish they hadn't escalated this. To deter continuation of this behaviour, a boomerang is probably in order. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with Nick-D's take on this. I had a few encounters with Rskp after I responded to a GOCE request for an article in the WWI scope. If the response I got from Rskp later is any example to go by, and judging by their behaviour at RM, then they have significant ownership issues with anything they edit. During the course of my copy edit of the article, they would systematically go back and effectively revert many of the changes I had made. Normally, that wouldn't be much of an issue as that's the nature of WP, but when the end result is more verbose and difficult to read than was afte the copy edit, it's moe than jus a little annoying. A later discussion on the material in the article, I posited an opinion, which was responded to in an unnecesarily dismissive fashion entirely non-conducive of a collegial environment. However, rather than edit war over it, I notified Jim Sweeney as he was a major contributor to the article and left it to them to hash it out. Crisco1942 subsequently protected the article to stop the ensuing edit war. This single interaction with Rskp soured my taste for future interactions and I have subsquently made a point of not taking up articles within the WWI scope that they've been involved in, which I find somewhat sad as I am Australian as they are. Rskp is a polific writer in WWI, particularly on the ANZAC contributions to the war effort and that is laudable, but their interactions with other editors is leaves much to be desired. Blackmane (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney cut the Populations living on the battlefields subsection of the article after it had reached GA. Given that the article was about a wide stretch of territory I thought it was useful, but Jim Sweeney is a cutter. See also Occupation of the Jordan Valley, Capture of Damascus (1918). In one instance after only five hours he cut a quote because I hadn't got round to paraphrasing it. You have blinkers on. --Rskp (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment which Blackmane took exception to was made after I had suggested leaving the subsection so readers could make up their own minds about whether the "Populations living on the battlefields" subsection was relevant as the GA reviewer had not seen a problem. Blackmane wrote" I highly doubt the removal of a largely unrelated and generally digressive section in this article will affect its GA status. It's not about interest, or lack thereof, which is the point, it's relevance" and I wrote "Yes, thank you for your work Blackmane. However, you did not do the GA review so your comments should be seen in that light." This comments were made here [6] when Jim Sweeney wanted the subsection cut. --Rskp (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge I've never had the misfortune of dealing with Rskp, but I am surprised to learn that this has been an ongoing problem for more than a year. I do think its time that this was escalated - by which I mean page protections and blocking - so the rest of us can work in peace. I agree with Peacemaker - this is gonna end up at arbcom sooner or later unless one or more of us man up and lay down the law such as it were. It's not pleasant (it never is) however that doesn't change the fact that it still needs to be done. And judging by this post, it needs to be done soon. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are starting to recognize the point of my first post (the one referred to as "snark"). The OP seems ot have a pretty serious history of problematic editing. In order to get his "preferred version" or at least one of his opponents potentially blocked, he used an inflammatory heading: "illegal use of...". This was designed to get immediate eyes, and immediate action in his favour. However, in doing so, he may have whipped out his giant AN boomerang. ES &L 11:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it is worth I have had numerous interactions with RoslynSKP over several years, including quite a few disagreements, so I am hardly an uninvolved editor here. That said I fully endorse Nick-Ds cmts as an accurate, considered and remarkably restrained summary of her behaviour and I think this complaint needs to be considered in this context. Further scrutiny, and potentially sanction, is needed here. Anotherclown (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I first interacted with Rskp quite about two years and tried to assist them to understand Wikipedia policies and generally help out. At first, I was very keen to help Rspk with their articles as I felt her work had the potential to go to featured status and wanted to help (I still think this, and I still want to help); however, because of the way in which Rskp has interacted with other editors, I have limited my involvement greatly over the past year because frankly working with them is not fun and quite stressful. A key part of working on Wikipedia is the ability to collaborate. That sometimes means compromising, accepting consensus (even when it goes against you), and moving on in the interests of progressing an article. It also means assuming good faith, maintaining a degree of friendliness and accepting that it isn't a case of "one editor against the world". I agree with Nick-D's summary, particularly in relation to WP:BATTLEGROUND. On a number of occasions I have witnessed this editor WP:EDITWARRING rather than seriously discussing the issues in a collaborative manner and attempting to gain consensus (for instance [7], [8], [9] as examples). When other editors attempt to discuss the issues, these attempts usually meet with frustration. If they disagree with Rskp, their talk page posts have on a number of occasions been dismissed as "personal attacks", at which point Rskp has refactored those editors' comments, essentially removing them for anyone to read (for instance this just today: [10]), and/or the intentions, actions or opinions of those in disagreement with Rskp are derided on Rskp's user page, which frankly borders on an attack page in my opinion. Further, efforts to come up with compromise solutions are greeted with responses using language that is not conducive to creating a collegiate editing environment. For instance, an attempt by myself to resolve one of the issues of contention on the Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division article (i.e. the issue of whether to use the term "Ottoman Empire" or "Turkey") is basically labelled as a conspiracy because a couple of editors happen to disagree with Rskp's interpretation. I will reiterate, I have no dog in that fight and frankly don't care what term is used, but I do want editors to stop constantly reverting and actually attempt to progress the article; that is what I would like to see from this whole episode across all the articles affected. Everyone take a step back, take a deep breath and find a way to collaborate. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AustralianRupert I am at a complete loss to understand your three links regarding attempting to gain consensus. They are in fact to other editors' reinstating Harry Chauvel twice and a change of file name, all of which stand. And your final link is to the personal attack made on the Talk:Anzac Mounted Division article which I identified as offensive and collapsed a couple of times. Then when reverted, I twice attempted to add the Remove Personal Attack tag, both of which have been cut. And remain cut. I thought when a personal attack was made on an editor, when I was insulted and disparaged, "is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done" and so I took steps to cut the comments. I really don't understand you at all. --Rskp (talk) 04:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AustralianRupert I am also completely at a loss regarding your comments considering the very good working relationship we have been enjoying during our editing of the 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia), and there are many other editors with whom I have collaborated very successfully to improve articles and to get some to B-class and GA. --Rskp (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rskp, I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt until you called my intentions into question here: [11] I was trying to promote collaboration by seeking a compromise to one of the issues that had developed between you and Jim, but your "the lock step trio" comment essentially labels my efforts and anyone else's as being part of some conspiracy. That does not produce a collaborative editing environment and frankly, I took it to be a personal attack. I remain impressed with your articles, and the effort you have put into the Sinai-Palestine topic, but I remain concerned about your ability to collaborate. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AustralianRupert, you are right. That was not a well thought out comment on your contribution. I was unfortunately expressing my exasperation. For that I apologise to you. But really, it was the Ottoman Empire which was fighting during the Sinai and Palestine campaign. While I acknowledge that Turkey existed in the 13th century (I think) and was re-established after the war, but using Turkey during S&P can only be pejorative and POV. --Rskp (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I appreciate your apology. Thank you. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments On top of the snarking about the improper rollback, now I am being impugned, here on the Administrators' noticeboard. I thought this was supposed to be a place to go for resolution not to be subject to attacks. I have been amazed at the level of harrassment that I have been subject to during my editing of Wikipedia. I made one comment to do with the issue of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey here [12] In 1299 it might well have been the Turkish Empire, but the Anzac Mounted Division is about the First World War, when the country was the Ottoman Empire. Many english language publications refer to Turkey, its pejorative in this context, and POV. The fact that this was the second time the editor had made improper use of the rollback has gone completely unnoticed in the rush to impugn me. See here [13]. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the move of the Harry Chauvel article as soon as the Trove information was forthcoming, I immediately voted for a return to Harry Chauvel. I had been comparing Harry Chauvel with Edmund Allenby, Philip Chetwode et al and thought it was wrong to have him the only one with a nickname. The Trove survey alerted me to the extremely wide use of the name Harry Chauvel and my reaction was immediate here [14]--Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the personal attack and my several attempts to collapse and then to add a REMOVE PERSONAL ATTACKS tag, these have all been undone. This is despite the comments being insulting. They disparaged me, and according to Wikipedia "is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done". Why should I have to go to ANI what ever that is? Why is it not possible to add a personal attack tag without it being cut? This links to the final revert [15] Why is it not possible to collapse a personal attack?--Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of the Anzac Mounted Division attempts to move the article are clearly on holiday for two months.
However, as the article itself has developed into a battleground for the names of the division, I thought it was important to add the sources for all those names, so readers could clearly evaluate the situation. However, using the British official historian for the first and second mentions has been repeatedly undone in what I am beginning to think of an an OWNERSHIP issue. See discussion here [16] Now I see that the links are to the Australian War Memorial Web Site and the War Diary. Given the limited use War Diaries can be used as sources, I would have thought the British official history of the campaign a better source for these two versions of the name of the division. Further the editor refused to accept that Powles book formed part of the official New Zealand history, repeatedly cutting it. Even when it is clear that its the third volume of the official history. See discussion here [17] On top of that the citation to the Australian War Memorial's copy of the Australian official history's contents page has been repeatedly mangled. See discussion here [18] The other editor was under a misconception that the link was to a particular page in the history and not to the contents page. --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership. Given that these are among the few edits to the Anzac Mounted Division article that I have made, the amount of edit waring associated with them points very clearly to Ownership problems by the same editor who made the illegal rollback. But it appears any criticism of that editor is not to be heard. What about my work? What about all the articles that have been written or rewritten which have got to GA? Don't I have good standing? --Rskp (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring [19] for related edit warring discussion. --Rskp (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake. There has been no discussion about the edit warring at this link. Its only been mentioned once during the rollback discussion, and twice during Nick-D's unsubstantiated contribution. --Rskp (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There continues to be no discussion of Jim Sweeney's dubious reporting of an edit war. After pointing out the problems with the links that editor provided to substantiate the report, nothing has been done, except for linking it to this discussion, which has not dealt with the edit war element at all. Further I am still waiting for some form of, at the very least, recognition of the extremely dubious nature of the series of posts in this subsection of the Administrators' noticeboard. The unsubstantiated impugning of my reputation should not continue to be ignored. --Rskp (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word is "impugn". The header you added made it look like Nick-D was the misspeller. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. --Rskp (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call for sanctions for impugning reputation

What can be done to correct these wrongs? --Rskp (talk) 04:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well as you're no doubt aware of there is some discussion below about opening and RFC/U on the matter. Outside the RFC/U there's the usual stuff: block editor(s), protect page(s), find consensus, etc. Its unlikely that this is gonna end soon, and its unlikely that either party's gonna walk away happy when the dust settles, but it will give the rest of us our course of action for how to approach the matter vis-a-vis your actions and the actions of the other editor(s). TomStar81 (Talk) 05:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you misunderstand me. I am talking only about the impugning of my reputation by editors here on the Administrators' noticeboard - just above. --Rskp (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 said above: "To my knowledge I've never had the misfortune of dealing with Rskp." What is this comment based on? Certainly all the other comments above are equally unsubstantiated. This impugns my reputation and requires expunging at least. --Rskp (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you're more concerned about your reputation than the editorial issues presented above reinforces my belief that interacting with you will be to my misfortune. People who can not accept responsibility for their actions, or their part in a larger action, bug me because any effort to correct the troublesome behavior in a civilized manner fails before it even starts due to the other editors inability to recognize a problem with the edits in the first place. As the first step to fixing any issue is recognizing that you bare some responsibility for the situation in the first place, and you have yet to reach that revelation, I am firmly convinced that any attempt we (by which I mean the community) make to act with the best interest of the article(s) in question will end up repeatedly undermined by you. Worse still for the rest of us will be the long and never ending string of insults and other unpleasant posts from you that we will have to deal with, which will likely take the form of either a long and drawn out temper tantrum or a stubborn refusal to admit any fault on your part by blaming everyone else for your shortcomings or failures with the material in question (in short, by being an ass). While I do find it admirable that you believe that you stand for something, on this site you need learn diplomacy and acceptance of those positions that run counter to your thinking, otherwise you'll end up back here again, and that will be your reputation whether you like it or not. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minute.

The reporting of the rollback was found to be perfectly correct and in fact the editor who made it was warned about it by Master Of Puppets. Mark Miller's spurious suggestion that I made the rollback was clearly dealt with by Master of Puppets also. See above.
Jim Sweeney's appeal to the Administrators' noticeboard regarding the edit war has been noted as being referred to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but has so far not made it there.

I simply have no idea what TomStar81 is talking about, and I suspect he doesn't either, because the number of articles which have been improved to B-class and GA, which I have been associated with, prove that I can and do collaborate with Wikipedia editors, all the time. So, I can't understand the attitude of the editors who have impugned me. They haven't even followed basic etiquette and have made personal attacks. These are banned on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks, where a personal attack is considered to be accusations about personal behaviour that lack evidence. Serious attacks, (which have been made here), need serious evidence in the form of diffs and links e.g. TomStar81's most recent uninformed/misinformed edit which doesn't have one link or diff. In any case, all the links and diffs which have been added in this discussion don't substantiate any of the accusations. These need to be fixed. --Rskp (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

It's pretty obvious that the ensuing commentary has taken this into the realm of an RFC/U. Perhaps it would be preferable to put a pause on further additional commentary and reserve it for the RFC/U that will probably be inevitable? Should this be wrapped up as "no consensus that rollback was abused"? Blackmane (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're gonna move the discussion to a new venue then leave a link behind so we can find the new location for the talk. That's all I ask. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand your negative comments, considering the very good working relationship I have been enjoying with AustralianRupert, during our collaborative editing of the 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia). And there are many, many other editors with whom I have collaborated very successfully, to improve articles, and to get some to B-class and GA. --Rskp (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to participate in an RFCU. I have never worked with this person but the diffs and the discussion here bring to the unfortunate conclusion that there is a battleground attitude which must be stopped. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. I've never done an RFCU, but as a coordinator for milhist I feel I've an obligation to the editors of the project to resolve this problem so we can all edit in peace (or what passes for it) here on the site. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Those diffs don't support any of the wildly imaginative personal comments directed at me. Nick-D's one diff does not work, he was informed of this on 3 November. AustralianRupert's first diff links to an edit by KylieTastic, the second to an edit by Sadads, the third to an edit by Anotherclown, the fourth relates to a personal attack on me which I cut. All the other diffs are either mine or Master of Puppets'. There is simply no evidence to support the attacks by "Cloud Cuckoo Land" editors, many of whom acknowledge they have never had any contact with me! What tha!!

Further, the reporting of the rollback was perfectly correct and in fact the editor who made it was warned about it by Master Of Puppets. Mark Miller's spurious suggestion that I made the rollback was corrected by Master of Puppets also. Further this is not the first time that an improper rollback has been made by the same editor. See here [20]

Nor is this the first time that I have been attacked here on the Administrators' notice board. See here [21] when the disruptive edits complete with diffs which I hoped would be investigated, were never even discussed. --Rskp (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rskp, to clarify, my links were not diffs to any specific users' edits, my links were to the articles' history pages showing all edits made to those pages in an attempt to show the general editing trends on those pages. I understand, though, that I could have been clearer in stating that, or in what I was attempting to show. Sorry for the confusion, please accept my apologies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that AustralianRupert. The first link was regarding the renaming of a file and I did attempt to discuss the matter here [22] on Widr's userpage. The second link to the Battle of Megiddo is interesting because the article is developing despite each of my contributions being strongly contested. I would suggest there is an ownership problem with another editor of this article. But I have been endeavouring to work around it in a cooperative fashion, rather than confront the editor. See link to the article's talk page where I asked a number of questions about the article. [23] Your third link to the Capture of Damascus can only be regarding the IP who deleted the article during the 95th anniversary because that anonymous editor thought there were too many long quotes. Having put the article out of Wikipedia the IP didn't even complete the process of getting the article accessed and so it languished for over a week. What particular behaviour of mine was so at fault here? Certainly not collaboration as the talk page of that article will verify, here [24] The fourth link is when the Remove Personal Attack tag was reinstated by me (Undid revision 579701134 by Abraham, B.S. (talk)This is the 2nd time tag reinstated. Insulting or disparaging an editor is not acceptable regardless of the manner it is done). A quick look at Wikipedia policy regarding personal attacks will show that evidence should be produced when none was forthcoming. On a number of occasions I have attempted to replace offensive posts with the tag only to have the tag cut and the offensive posts reinstated. This is against Wikipedia policy. Or have it got it wrong? Can you tell me why you think that particular edit, is not a personal attack?

So although you claim I did not collaborate with other editors during the editing of the articles you linked to, if you had looked to the talk pages you would have found proof that in fact I did collaborate and discusss the issues. Its only the personal attack, which I thought was PERSONAL and that I therefore, had a right to delete, without discussing it with anyone else. I replaced the offensive comments with the RPA tag so the editor would understand why the post was deleted. Abrahams, BS did not have any right to cut the RPA tag as it wass not that editor who had been offended. --Rskp (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Wikipedia:Personal attacks reads "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. ... What is considered to be a personal attack?

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. First offenses and isolated incidents Sometimes the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all."

Removal of text Policy shortcut: WP:RPA There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The (Personal attack removed) template can be used for this purpose." --Rskp (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why the unsubstantiated personal attacks by Nick-D, Blackmane, and TomStar81 on 30 October, remain on the Administrators' noticeboard? --Rskp (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Cause no one gives a shit about your whining? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If you're here on the board, then you've screwed up spectacularly, and because your reputation for bullshit has long since preceded you we have absolutely no interest in any of the crap you drag here. Just for once, this really is all about you, but it isn't about your misguided and fanciful 'victim role playing' ponzy scheme, its about how we can sanction you, or block you - or better yet, topic block you - for a long period of time so the rest of the people who actually do the stuff that you have staunchly refused to let them do through your multiple blatant and apparently proud to have infractions of the various guidelines and policies on site. To that end, then, please continue to contribute from the victim's perspective under these posts on this board so that when the RFC/U on you and your behavior is opened we can present plenty of evidence that the only way you'll grasp the message and/or take the hint is the hard way, which will give us admins and the coordinators the leeway to block you and/or revert your edits by consensus of the community as a whole. (PS: Thank you for proving me earlier point, specifically that" [w]orse still for the rest of us will be the long and never ending string of insults and other unpleasant posts from you that we will have to deal with, which will likely take the form of either a long and drawn out temper tantrum or a stubborn refusal to admit any fault on your part by blaming everyone else for your shortcomings or failures with the material in question (in short, by being an ass).") TomStar81 (Talk) 04:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 you acknowledge that you have never worked with me on any articles on Wikipedia, yet you imagine you can project into the future and devine my behaviour, without any apparent self-awareness that you are making an unsubstantiated personal attack. Is there any Administrator who can tell me why TomStar81's behaviour is not being criticised? And why the personal attacks in the posts by Nick-D, Blackmane, and TomStar81 on 30 October, remain on the Administrators' noticeboard? --Rskp (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the latter, because as we have said you have no sense of responsibility, and these are not attacks, they are facts, sadly. On the former, I presume to to take an educated guess as to how this will play out between you and the community because I was once in your shoes, having experienced WP:OWN the hard way, and like you I raised a fuss on any soapbox I could find - here, WP:AFD, Jimbo Wale's talk page, etc. Like you, I thought myself to be in the right, and like you I was disappointed when no one took my side, or defended my edits, or acknowledged my effort. And as a result of that experience I came to the conclusion that if everyone else was against me in the matter I must be doing something wrong, so I looked at the problem from another perspective, adjusted my course of action, made amends for my mistakes. If you are offended by the so-called personal attacks then I apologize, but I will not apologize for speaking my mind on the matter, and from where I sit the problem isn't us, its you. If you can approach this from a learning perspective then you will evolve as I did, and that will make you a valuable contributor, but if you stick to your guns then you will most likely lose. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they are facts, TomStar81, substantiate them. Show us your evidence for these serious claims. --Rskp (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For that I'd need to request clarification from you. Are you asking me to present evidence that I had WP:OWN issues, evidence that the alleged personal attack posts remain in the section, or evidence that the information above is based on facts related to your behavior? You're unclear on which of these you want, and I would rather not waste our collective time going down the wrong road to provide an answer from a misunderstood question. If you'd clarify, I would look into it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to "On the latter, because as we have said you have no sense of responsibility, and these are not attacks, they are facts, sadly." --Rskp (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Totally NPOV stalker I am a member of Milhist too. I have seen (but not been editorially involved) in the excellent Palestine campaign articles that you have contributed greatly to. You are a good ed. But I would respectfully urge you to re-read User:TomStar81s post. The editor has undergone a growth process through a similar issue in the past. I see it as compassionate advice. It happens to many of us. Reflect and engage in the spirit in which I think it was meant. Happy editing! Irondome (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TomSTar81 for your apology and thank you Irondome for drawing my attention back to this post. However, I can't understand why my correct identification of an improper rollback resulted in this outpouring of imaginative negative thoughts, mainly from editors who acknowledge they have not worked with me. The one thing I thought Wikipedia stood for was equality; equality of all editors, based on polite respect and reasoned evidence based argument; that if an editor felt they had been personally attacked they were entitled to use the RPA tag. --Rskp (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward?

We do stand for equality, in so far as policy dictates equality and neutrality one site. It goes without saying that in editing this site there must be moderation in all things or the purpose of the project will be lost. For bringing the rollback issue here you acted correctly, and when this post is closed the editors in question will be admonished for the their roles in the matter of the rollback, but as this is still active that has yet to occur because the posts here have uncovered issued beyond the rollback. That is what has lead to the ongoing (and at times uncivil) conversation here, which is what has brought us to this point: for us to act ALL parties (and that includes me as well) need to come here with an open mind, and accept that to a greater or lesser extent we all share some of the blame. Philosophically, this is an unjust website, since according to Plato in his work The Republic justice is, on some level, "...minding ones own business", yet the nature of the both humanity and Wikipedia demand consensus from groups of people, which of necessity means that we must involve ourselves in the business of others for the sake for the sake of peace among the collective whole.

With this in mind then when a problem reaches the pages of the administrators notice board, or the mediation cabal, or the arbitration committee is due in part to failure of both parties to back off a little and try to see the view from the other party's perspective. Having seen you capacity to forgive there is yet hope for all parties in this matter if the parties will sit down and discuss the issue with an open mind. Upon his enlightenment, Siddhārtha Gautama explained to his monk the concept of the middle path, one that leaves no one happy but everyone content. I learned to apply this thinking here, and it has served me well in that I know longer take the extreme views on either side, but work to see the wisdom in the positions presented by both sides. Having come to walk this path here I've found that it makes working with people on the site easier since you come into a discussion on conduct or the inclusion/exclusion of material or sources expecting that your work will be trimmed or removed to some greater or lesser extent, or in the matter of behavior that I am already partially to blame for a user registered compliant, and therefore accepting this I can work with all parties to find a solution that works for the parties, even if it comes at my expense.

As it relates to this page, and the matter at hand, your apology is a hopeful sign that we can resolve this matter here without the need for it to grow beyond the pages of the administers noticeboard. It appears to me that while it may have been the questionable use of the rollback tool by Jim Sweeney that initiated this discussion your fellow editors feel that there is more to this issue than a simple case of rolling back an edit made to an article. My question to you now, then, is that if we were to bring the parties here to discuss the edits, and if so would you be willing to work with them to find find a solution to the underlying issue(s) even if it means that the result would not necessarily be in your favor. Know that in the course of the discussion, the rollback issue you raised would be addressed as well. Are willing to make that leap of faith? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I would really like to know what this has all been about. --Rskp (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then for the sake of enlightenment and peace among the parties and articles privy to this section let us begin our journey here, accepting that no one involved in this quagmire has acted with the best interest of the community in mind. In a review of the section as a whole I make the following findings as it relates to the discussions above:

On the matter of the articles in question the underlying issue is not editor conduct per se, but a disagreement over the content in or pertaining to the articles that has resulted in editors taking an increasingly hawkish approach to each other, which in turn has stalled the process of consensus by rendering any edit by the involved parties in these articles to be suspicious in nature. This in turn has lead the editors in question to alienate other participants and to assume a cold war-ish wheel war mentality in the articles. As it is unimportant to the matter at hand, the issue of who started the chain of events is irrelevant, and therefore we need to seek a solution to the issue that will leave everyone content - not happy, mind you, but content - so as to allow for the article's development to continue peacefully. Specifically, the article mentioned are the Harry Chauvel and ANZAC Mounted Division, with the articles Occupation of the Jordan Valley and Capture of Damascus (1918) mentioned in passing.
On the matter of Rollback use, the allegation is that editor(s) are misusing the tool by rolling back additions to or subtractions from the articles in question that are not considered to be test edits or vandalism. As this matter falls within the scope of RBK it will be looked at as a matter of improper use, and if the findings warrant actions will be taken against the parties involved in a manner consistent either with an agreement reached here or in accordance with established guidelines and policies on site.
On the matter of party participation, editors are reminded that we are not here to assess blame or seek compensation, but to work together in order that a solution can be found that we can agree to abide by with regards to content.

Having laid out these points, I now ask if the editors involved in this matter both here and in the article spaces are willing to work together in this section to find a solution, and if so would you individually be willing to agree to a status quo ante bellum where by no involved editor works on the articles identified above until an agreement is reached here on the best way to resolve the issues in the article? TomStar81 (Talk) 05:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I thought a status quo ante bellum was already in place regarding the Anzac Mounted Division. The Damascus article needs some quotes to be paraphrased which I haven't got round to yet as I've been working on operations a year earlier in 1917. See the talk page for this discussion. Is there something else? But I have no idea what the issue with the Occupation of the Jordan Valley article is. --Rskp (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I mentioned the Occupation regarding demands to paraphrase or cut quotes. See the talk page. --Rskp (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 I was under the impression that the rollback issue was sorted here User talk:Jim Sweeney#Rollback? The Harry Chauvel article was an issue which I was not directly involved with but has been sorted by an Admin. The Talk:Capture of Damascus (1918)#Copyright violations issue was identified by a third party and I believe that is no longer an issue as the potential copyright problems have been resolved. Same with Talk:Occupation of the Jordan Valley#Over use of quotes was a concern over copyright and the extensive use of quotes. But I am glad to see that Roslyn has said there is status quo ante bellum in place regarding the ANZAC Mtd Division article. There has also been mention of cutting information populations living on a battlefield, see Talk:Battle of Sharon this was not me acting alone but a community consensus, which Roslyn had difficulty accepting. It also pleasing to see that Roslyn has identified what is a personal attack, and may stop making them. This is a personal attack and as its in an edit summery it can not be recanted of struck out [25] and here Talk:Raid on Nekhl#Wikipedia: Disruptive Editing adding a Wiki link and a couple of words is not disruptive. But I am all for moving forward that's why until now I have not been involved in this discussion. Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See [26] status quo ante bellum in operating 3 November and here [27] on the talk page. --Rskp (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that we were on first name terms but as it appears we are, Jim, regarding personal attacks, yes I will in the future, ignore them - considering them exercises in creative writing. It does, however, seem a shame when Wikipedia purports to be a place where editors are polite to one another, that these attacks are sanctioned and indeed practiced even here. --Rskp (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Jim, I've gotten wrapped up in work, it'll take me another day to read through and get up to speed with your comments here, but thanks for the reply and your willingness to participate. Now I've got to go shower and hit the sack cuz I gots to be up early tomorrow for more fixing the house work. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the status quo just could not last [28]. TomStar81 suggest you also read Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division along with the above comments.Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fellas, a white peace doesn't mean a cold war, it means nobody messes with the article(s) in question until all parties work out an agreement they can live with (even if it is a reluctant agreement). I am still reading through the material, and now with the new material, I'm gonna need a little more time yet. Please be patient... TomStar81 (Talk) 07:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long delay in getting back here, they are tearing down more of my house to fix years-long maintenance neglect issues, and its interfering the electricity and the water and just about everything else in my house at the moment. Anyway, moving one here...: Jim, the only rollback post I can find there is from 2011, was that the one you are referring to? Also, as it relates to the issues of the block quoting and the copyright violation allegations, according to what I can tell from the policy/guideline material here you are correct and did act accordingly in defense of the material in the articles. Rskp, you do have to understand here that where it relates to article content unless the material is lifted from a copyfree site (DANFS, for instance) then it needs to be paraphrased a whole hell of a lot if you expect it to stay. In this respect then, Jim did in fact move to save the article from being censored by the copyvio people, and in an ironic move from what I can tell this likely saved you from ending up blocked or topic banned from the subjects altogether. The copyvio people are very unsympathetic towards those who add copyright material of any type, and moreover the true joy of article development doesn't come from quoting what others have written, it comes from remixing their music to form your own beat with the underlying information. For example, most of the weaponry material in the Iowa class battleship articles comes from navweapons.com, a copyrighted site, but its been rewritten so much so that its more my work based on the work than it is his work that I quote. A little less direct from the manufacturer quoting would likely help the articles in the long run, and in addition cutting down the information helps those with a dial up modem or an otherwise slow connection get to the material that much faster (so much so in fact that way back in my day the article lengths were strictly limited at 10kbs). Now I'll remind both of you that while the white peace is in effect you have agreed to refrain from editing the articles, and while I am amenable to helping us reach an agreement on the course of action to be taken I will block you guy(s) or fully protect the pages in question if I see that its not working. I'm meeting you half way here, so try and do the same for me. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on the talk page for ANZAC Mounted Division, I presume talk page discussion is allowed under the White Peace (like that term).Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General sanction notices by non-admins

Verbiage changed to
"Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned by an uninvolved administrator, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process."
--v/r - T P 18:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's my understanding that, when there's a general sanction affecting an article, an administrator has the option of placing an editor on notice by warning them and then noting the warning on the sanction page, like this. I would appreciate some clarification about non-admin notices, like this. In particular, are they allowed and are they treated like admin notices? MilesMoney (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I answered this question here.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template ends with "This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at WP:AEGS." so how can an involved non-administrator give an effective notice?! MilesMoney (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read what I wrote at AQFT's talk page. You also need to read WP:AEGS.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, the template reads, "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process."

The ambiguous part is "despite being warned". Do we mean warned by any uninvolved administrator or just some involved editor trying to undermine someone they see as an opponent? MilesMoney (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of your problem is your focus on "opponents". If I were you, I'd spend more time trying to change your mindset rather than wikilawyer the language of the template. I don't think I'm getting through to you (I'm referring in part to our previous discussion on my talk page), so I'll let others try.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the "warning" part is to make 100% sure that people editing articles under sanctions are aware that there are sanctions, and as far as I can tell, all the regulars here, who participated in the AN/I thread, are sufficiently aware of the sanctions. In other words, I think this arguing about who has been "warned" and who hasn't is overly bureaucratic, since everyone doing the arguing knows about the sanctions. If we insist on the bureaucracy, I suppose we could simply give a formal "warning" for all the users involved here and move on. Is this what people want? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are two distinct things here. The first is that rules about sanctions make frequent mention of ensuring that the editor is aware of sanctions, so editors must be warned of them. Since Steeletrap voted to approve those sanctions, it's a bit pointless to officially remind her.

The second thing is a concrete warning. For example, I received one from Arsten regarding Ayn Rand, somewhat redundantly ordering me to accept the RfC that I had already accepted, lest I be article-banned. That's a formal warning, and it's the first strike, to be followed by a more violent second strike.

Now, pretty much anyone can notify an editor that there are sanctions, but I can't imagine anyone but an uninvolved admin leaving a warning. Can you? MilesMoney (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember warning people about sanctions before I was admin. I don't think I used the template, though, cause I'm not a template kind of person. Those were 1RR sanctions imposed by Arbcom, so maybe that's different? I dunno. If you're looking at this as getting getting two "strikes" before you're out, I think you're looking at it entirely the wrong way. I would compare it to looking at the 3RR rule as getting three "free" reverts... ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the terms of the sanction -- 3rr anyone can give. The specific sanction for Austrian Economics in question says "admin," the draft ArbCom put out for their general sanctions said any editor... it's pretty much RTM. NE Ent 03:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ec]::I think the question is this -- as I understood it: The Sanctions say, Editor A may be warned, and if the behavior is repeated then Editor A may then be blocked. I understood these formal notices to be the unambiguous, specific and official warning that would activate the Admin's prerogative to block if the behavior were repeated. Obviously any editor may warn any other if for legitimate cause, without having to do so on the official Sanctions log. So how can there be an official posting on the log by a non-Admin who does not have the authority to block? We already have a template on the talk page identifying the article as subject to Sanctions. Moreover, the prohibited behavior is not allowed anywhere on WP, so even if an editor were not previously aware that the article is under Sanctions there can be no problem with a formal Admin warning and subsequent block if warning is violated. I don't see what purpose an additional "informational" non-Admin warning would serve. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the logged warning as invalid -- the draft language I ~~plagiarized~~ re used under creative commons share alike said "admin," the close of the discussion said "admin". NE Ent 03:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think we're done here. MilesMoney (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're done here. NE Ent's interpretation of the sanctions may be one possible interpretation, but it's not necessarily the correct one, and it's certainly not the only one. When you add past practice to the language, I believe a different interpretation is more reasonable. But let's start with the relevant language (just the first sentence):

Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The issue is whether the phrase "despite being warned" implies that the admin who imposes the sanctions must also be the user who issued the warning or whether it means that the sanctioned user had to have been previously warned by anyone. FWIW, I interpreted it to mean the latter; apparently, NE Ent believes it is the former.

We had a discussion about different sanctions once before and whether a non-admin could issue a warning using a similar template. The result was that a non-admin could not use a template that said it was being issued by an admin but they could use the template's language in a hand-crafted warning that eliminated the assertion that they were an admin. As A Quest For Knowledge states on his talk page (in response to what I said there), "I do know for a fact that in AE enforced discretionary sanctions, any editor is allowed to make these warnings/notifications." My experience with ArbCom sanctions (I don't have experience with all of them) is the same, although I stress again that it's unusual for a non-admin to issue the warning. Taking WP:ARBPIA as an example, the language there about notifications is: "For convenience, the template {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}} may be used, or an individual message containing the same information." At WP:AEGS, I used that identical language (except for the template): "For convenience, the template {{Austrian economics enforcement}} may be used by an administrator, or an individual message containing the same information."

Based on NE Ent's statements above, I imagine he would say that it doesn't matter what ARBPIA says. Nor does it matter what I wrote at AEGS if both are contradicted by the sanctions language itself. I believe, however, that all of this is evidence in support of my interpretation of the closing language. But let's also look at the authorizing language in the Remedies section of ARBPIA: "Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning." Somewhat similar to our language, it isn't clear whether the admin must be the person who issues the warning. Certainly no one would say that the sanction-imposing admin must be the same as the warning-issuing admin as that would be silly. So, why would it imply that the editor issuing the warning must be an admin?

Let's get back to our language. It was cloned from the mixed martial arts sanctions. If you look at the way that's been handled subsequently at WP:GS/MMA, you'll see that Hasteur, a non-admin, has several times issued warnings.

Bottom line: I believe NE Ent is wrong. That said, I don't have a problem clarifying the sanctions to be similar to his interpretation. I prefer personally that only admins issue warnings, so NE Ent's interpretation aligns with that preference. More important, I don't think involved editors should be issuing warnings as it lends itself to abuse by the editors who are fighting with each other. (I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with an uninvolved non-admin issuing the warning, but I don't see that many uninvolved non-admins would be interested in issuing warnings in topic areas that they don't normally contribute, and often uninvolved admins issue these warnings because some editor complains to the admin, and it's less likely that the complainer would go to a non-admin.)--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Questions:
- Just discovered this thread. I think it would help to clearly differentiate between the {{Austrian economics enforcement}} user talk page warning that I thought anyone can leave and the Log Notices on Austrian economics/General sanctions which I assume is what we are discussing.
- Also, I assume any warning about any single or group of policy violations on a talk page would have some relevance, not just behavioral issues. WP:BLP already has been applied once under these sanctions.
- Also, is there a warning template for editor(s) who reject, say, more than a dozen WP:RS for a factoid, ala this WP:RSN in the Austrian economics sanctions area??
- Also, if there is a long term policy, is this an attempt to change it or to just change wording on this sanctions page? CM-DC talk 18:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I propose the first sentence of the sanctions be changed to read (the bolded phrase is the change):

Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned by an uninvolved administrator, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

Myself, I prefer more sentences rather than trying to squeeze everything into one, but the proposed change is a minimalist approach to what we've already got.

Support as proposer.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the arbs have looked at this recently and their comments are that this is a notification not a warning and is simply drawing a users attention to the existence of the sanctions not warning them they are breaking them. On that basis this is all rather moot. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about "moot", but the arbitrators have looked at this issue in the context of discretionary sanctions imposed by the Committee (WP:AC/DSR). The proposed language in this regard is "Any editor may alert any other editor that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for the area of conflict. These alerts are advisory in nature and cannot be revoked or appealed." Obviously, that means it doesn't have to be an administrator. They also eliminated the template/admin confusion by using a template that doesn't say the person issuing the warning is an administrator: "These alerts are advisory in nature and cannot be revoked or appealed. The alert links to Committee's authorisation and is issued by placing the standard template message – currently {{ArbCom-Alert}} – on the talk page of the editor being notified. Alerts must be logged." The community's sanctions don't have to be the same as ArbCom's, but an alternative to my proposal is to permit any editor to issue the notice but use a different template from the one we have now. My biggest problem with that is I don't like involved editors issuing the warning, even if the language of the warning is less threatening, although ArbCom's proposal doesn't say that the party issuing the warning has to be uninvolved.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If these truly are notifications about the presence of discretionary sanctions, then it shouldn't matter who tells them about it. If that is the case, instead of "by an uninvolved administrator" it should be "by any editor". Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 13:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But who would you pick to tell you? If I'd just started editing somewhere without knowing discretionary sanctions existed, then a notification from an involved editor might seem rather an aggressive act. All in all, I think I'd prefer to be told by an uninvolved admin. NebY (talk) 15:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - An official log of notices clearly is not a friendly FYI. It's a notice that the editor who received the notice has violated policy and that renewed violation may result in an Admin blocking the editor. The talk pages are templated with the fact that GS are in effect. No editor has the right to violate policy in any article, Sanctions or no Sanctions. Not knowing about the Sanctions is not a license to violate WP policy. @Bbb23:'s proposal is clearly in the spirit of the ANI discussion and implements the intention and spirit of the General Sanctions. The log of Notices is to verify that the warning stated in the GS has been delivered by an Admin for specific editor behavior. SPECIFICO talk 16:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd prefer warnings to come from an administrator in the case of discretionary sanctions, particularly as they are logged. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Logged warnings should only come from uninvolved administrators. If it's a meaningless notification, then why keep a log? If we're going to keep a record of it and use it as evidence for future potential sanctions, we should insure everything is on the up and up. Gamaliel (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modify to read: Administrators may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being notified by any administrator, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, or expected standards of behavior or editorial process. Rationale: 1. We already have WP:INVOLVED, which goes without saying; 2. "Notified" allows for milder admonitions rather than sharper rebukes (of which I am quite aware); 3. Is a bit more terse in presentation. – S. Rich (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Srich, can we please just keep this simple and get done with it? @Bbb23:'s proposal gives us the wisdom of his judgment and the stature of the Admin who closed the ANI implementing the Sanctions. Involved editors such as ourselves should not try to jockey for position here, where we have the benefit of Admin attention and judgment. Please do register your Support or Oppose view, but let's not fragment and derail the process here. Gracias. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure we have enough to close this discussion with a consensus. I don't care about whether my proposal is adopted as much as I care about clarifying the notification issue one way or the other so we don'tfight over it later on. If someone wants to propose an alternative (I don't personally like S. Rich's, partly because it changes too much, partly because it makes assumptions, and least because it's not quite grammatical), that would be okay as long as there's enough input from the community to establish a consensus. The most obvious alternative is to follow ArbCom's proposed model (I noted it above).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the involved editors all know about this thread and AN has lots of eyes on it, so I would think you may be too cautious. I would say there is consensus here. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think involved editors all know about this thread? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on what we see as a "notification" or a "warning". A notification is just someone saying "Discretionary sanctions can be imposed if necessary for editing in this area. Be aware of that." It's not an accusation of wrongdoing, just making sure someone knows the topic area is subject to sanctions. That's only fair, as not every editor on a given article may know that sanctions can be imposed there. A warning, on the other hand, is generally of the form "You have been behaving inappropriately at X in Y manner, and if you keep it up, you will be sanctioned." Since an uninvolved administrator is the only one who can actually impose such a sanction, a warning of that nature would be much less effective from anyone else. However, as I see it, the purpose of a notification requirement is to make sure editors aren't hit out of the blue with sanctions they didn't even know were possible. I don't see why someone would need to be either an administrator or uninvolved to give such a notice. In practice, at AE, we've sanctioned editors who had given such notices to others but had never technically received one themselves, because the fact that they were warning others of the sanctions clearly indicated they were themselves aware of them. Placing a highly procedural setup on such a simple notification seems to me to be pointless bureaucracy; the essence of the matter is that the sanctioned editor must be aware of the applicability of discretionary sanctions to the area they're editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely understand what you're saying, and as I've now said multiple times, all I want to do is straighten out what we will allow for these sanctions. I have no objection to allowing editors, even involved editors (although I intuitively like that less), to issue the notification, but if we're going to go that route, we need a template that is not threatening, and editors would have to use that template or at least the same language. Otherwise, things could get a bit nasty. If you prefer that, Seraphimblade, you could create an alternate proposal, and we could see what the consensus is. If you decide to do so, I'd personally appreciate a proposal that amends the closing language as little as possible to achieve the objective.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue we're discussing is warning notices which are logged after a specific violation of WP behavioral policies, not informational notices such as you describe, but which are not logged and may just be informal fyi's. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With Specifico's comment in mind, the language should be Administrators may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being notified by any administrator, that editor has committed a specific violation of WP behavioral policies. I can live with that. – S. Rich (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not our role to instruct the Admins as to how they exercise their authority. Your proposal is nonsense and as I said above, it's fruitless and inappropriate to diffuse this thread by trying to twist and tweak Bbb's proposal. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you think my proposal is nonsense. I was incorporating the phrase you had posted shortly earlier: "after a specific violation of WP behavioral policies". (And I'm sure admins will feel free to ignore my comment, but less my "instructions.") In any event, Specifico, if you have another version to suggest, please feel free to post it. – S. Rich (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing to suggest that my words were intended or even appropriate as a modification of Bbb's proposal. This is now the third time I've explicitly posted to the contrary in response to you. Have you actually read my comments in this thread? If so you would know that I do not favor modifying Bbb's proposal. Srich, of all the places for you to display this kind of behavior I would guess that this is one of the ~~most foolish and~~ most conspicuous.~~likely to further tarnish your reputation here.~~ Please drop it. SPECIFICO talk 01:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, just because you don't like S. Rich's proposal doesn't make it "nonsense". The "further tarnish your reputation" comment is a personal attack, and you should at a minimum strike it. I, happily, don't follow the endless battles in this topic area, but, generally, I am unaware that S. Rich has a tarnished reputation in the first instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support version modified so that it does not require the Administrator warning an editor to be uninvolved. This is too limiting for a notification. And if the Admin is involved, then they are aware that the warning applies to them. Dougweller (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, just to be clear, is this the language you would support? "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned by an administrator, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process." (bolded language is change from current sanctions language).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. (Do we have instructions for involved editors as to what they should do if they think the warning has been ignored)? Took me 10 minutes and several FireFox crashes to respond, sorry (now using Opera - must try to get the number of tabs in Firefox down below 200).Dougweller (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

200?? Lord, doesn't that make you dizzy? Do you like Opera better than Firefox? As far as I know, no such instructions. Because these are community-based sanctions, an editor could report a violation to an admin noticeboard, or, as often happens, directly to an (overworked) admin, potentially causing the admin to open a 201st tab.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break

The closing statement at ANI is Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them or the administrators' noticeboard. There's nothing in there mandating or even discussing the creation of a log ( WP:AEGS ) and nothing saying an admin can't revert a bad block (as asserted at Wikipedia:AEGS#Remedies).

It's fairly absurd that Bbb23 would write {{Austrian economics enforcement}} with the provision This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at WP:AEGS. and then claim I'm wrong in thinking a non-admin can't post the notice.

As Seraphimblade explains above, this has escalated from hopefully simple and useful to mini-bureaucracy. The idea -- which admittedly I didn't make crystal clear when I copy / pasted the proposal from the prior Mixed Martial Arts sanction -- was simply that an editor can place a notification on user's talk page and, if necessary later, use the diff when reporting disruption to ANI. My recommendation is that the "Remedies" and "Log of notifications" section of WP:AEGS and the overly long {{Austrian economics enforcement}} be trimmed down to pretty much just the closing statement of the ANI. NE Ent 11:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many distortions in your statement that I'll just say I oppose it, even though a small part of might be unobjectionable.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. The proposal is meaningless. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Admins required

So, who are the admins willing to monitor the Austrian Economics topic-space and issue warnings/sanctions? The problems with this topic space were so serious that they warranted general sanctions, but since the general sanctions have been put in place, only a single editor has been sanctioned and that only happened because an uninvolved editor (me) filed an AN/I report. It's all fine and dandy to say a topic-space is under generation sanctions, but if we don't have admins to patrol this topic space and nothing changes, it's meaningless. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since they were community passed sanctions, the community can modify them. Not all article probation requires an admin to place an initial notification, the purpose of which is to ensure the editor is aware of the sanctions, and afterwhich they can be sanctioned by an admin for any violation of them. It might be a good idea to change it so that admin warnings are not required. You could look at the Men's rights movement probation for verbiage. It requires sanctions to be done by admins, but not notices themselves. Once all involved parties are notified, if uninvolved admins aren't actively looking over for violations, I'd suggest that any party who detects a vio take it to ANI. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the change above, editors can no longer issue notifications. Instead, an admin will be required to issue notifications. So who are the admins willing to patrol this topic space? The only admin to actually enact a sanction has just stated that they are not interesting in admining this topic-space.[29] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly crazy. We need to reopen the discussion. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen it for what reason, that the closure is incorrect or that more administrators need to patrol the pages subject to sanctions? I don't get it. If you have a problem with the closure, Doug, you should take it up with TParis. As for the other, as we all know, no administrator is required to use the tools.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong in the close, I see something entirely wrong in the proposal itself. But it's not my place to supervote. I think that "only administrators may warn editors" is a bad idea to start with. If you want to overturn the proposal, I suggest a new vote along the lines of "Ok, we were a bit silly with our ideas, lets go back to the standard 'anyone may warn.' (no offense Bbb23).--v/r - T P 19:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TP, I'm not in the least offended. I disagree that there's any "standard" way of dealing with these kinds of community-based sanctions. However, I've said over and over that I don't care much how this is done. I made a proposal but I mentioned repeatedly alternate proposals that would be acceptable (to me). My principal goal was clarity, so editors and admins know what they can and can't do with these sanctions. ArbCom may be able standardize dealing with discretionary sanctions, but it's highly unlikely the community will ever do so. So, there are two other (reasonable) possible proposals: (1) any admin, involved or not, can issue a warning or (2) any editor can issue a warning. In particular, if we were to change to #2, I would want editors to issue a standard template, whether it be the one currently in place for these sanctions or one more similar to the ArbCom warnings (I prefer those myself). In that way, although an editor's motivation might be suspicious, at least they couldn't create their own warning language. In either alternate, the issuer must log the notification.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this point correctly, the issue is not who may "warn" in the sense of informing an editor of the GS. I understand the issue to be who may log a warning on the GS page as a precondition for an Admin-issued block, without going to the usual ANI or other process. There's a log of every informational warning in the talk page histories, so I don't understand why there's particular concern about informational notices. The formal notice which can precede a block seems like it only makes sense if it comes from an Admin, per the close of this AN. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer "A Quest For Knowledge"'s question (as I see it and correct me if I'm wrong): Admins do not necessarily have to patrol pages. If they see troublesome issues arising at a noticeboard (WP:BLP, WP:RSN, WP:NPOV, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, etc.) and are made aware of the community sanctions, they can do something. Complaining to an admin who has put on the sanctions or who has commented on behavior in a specific article also, I assume, would be ok. User:Carolmooredc talk 19:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'standard method' for sanctions, being that community sanctions is one of the topic areas I actually do work often enough (see Abortion, Men's Right's, US Election 2012, ect) is that an editor must be notified/warned that sanctions exist before an administrator may action on them. This notification/warning (in the informal sense) is generally carried out with a {{Uw-probation}} which carries the notice "In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation" and "The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you." Any editor may give this message. It is logged on the community sanctions page because administrators need to know that editors are aware of the sanctions before acting. Instead of forcing us to search talk page history, or anywhere else an editor may have been given the heads up, a log is kept of "Ohh hey, this person has been given a heads up that article probation exists". Now, when sanctions say "after a warning", they do not mean that editors get a freebie before getting blocked. It means that editors were given a heads up that sanctions existed and that the risk of a block is higher. If anyone doesn't understand the difference there, feel free to ask me for clarification. No editor has a 'right' to a formal warning by an administrator before a block. However, it would be unfair to block someone who didn't know they were entering an area where administrator's wield larger sticks. That's what the 'warning' in sanctions refer to when they say 'if after being warned' and when we warn folks on their talk page. "WARNING: ADMINS HAVE HUGE STICKS ON THIS PAGE!" is all folks get. That's why I think this proposal is silly. It doesn't take an administrator to tell someone that they are entering a contentious topic area with general sanctions. It takes a friendly editor. If we only allowed administrators to notify/warn editors of sanctions then why are none of the community sanctions or arbcom sanctions pages locked to sysop-only? Bottom line: The 'warning' is a warning about sanctions, not a warning about an editor's behavior.
My closure of this proposal was purely on consensus, because clearly if I had supervoted it would've gone the other way.--v/r - T P 20:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just updated WP:General sanctions to add what I have just described above. I believe this is already de jure protocol so I've just codified it.--v/r - T P 20:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And on the other hand Editors who clearly have been a party to ANIs that led to community sanctions in an area or or clearly involved in discussion of those sanctions on one or more articles do not neccessarily need a talk page warning because it is assumed they know. Unless it's left by someone who doesn't know the editor knows about it, obviously. ;-) User:Carolmooredc talk 20:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page warning is to prove that they've been notified. Whether that happens on their talk page or if it happens somewhere else, as long as they themselves are explicitly told that sanctions exist and that explicit notification is logged. Otherwise, whether or not they were 'warned'/notified can be wiki-lawyered. Keep in mind, Carol, that even Arbcom leaves notices on user's talk pages when Arbcom cases are closed and then logs that notice no matter how much participation a user had in the case.--v/r - T P 20:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's as "standard" as you say (I looked at several), and I disagree with the change to WP:General sanctions for the same reason. I'm bowing out of this. As far as the Austrian economics sanctions notification is involved, unless there is some clarity I can live with, I will not monitor changes to WP:AEGS; nor will I sanction anyone. Other administrators/editors can deal with it without me, I'm sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, better safe than sorry reminding specific individuals then probably is the best approach, even if they've been involved in 4 or 5 threads where it's been mentioned. BBB23, thanks for your patience in hanging in there as long as you did. User:Carolmooredc talk 16:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did two notices to users. Did I do it right? One is here: User_talk:MilesMoney#WP:RSN. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisements on Wikipedia by the WMF

{{hat|NAC: Closing again. Wrong venue, not a matter for administrators. Please express your concerns on WP:VPP or directly to the WMF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)}} {{hat|1=This will only be a concern if they start selling sausage inna bun. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)}} {{archive top|Reopen when admins get free t-shirts. John Reaves 02:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

Seriously? Advertisements for the "Wikipedia store" are now displayed in lovely banner ad format when reading or editing pages? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a matter for the administrators noticeboard? Take it to WP:VPM or something. Legoktm (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Legoktm: This noticeboard has been considered a general discussion noticeboard for a very long time. It's certainly more watched and used than an obscure village pump. In this case, these points are largely irrelevant, though: local administrators are in control of the local site interface. This noticeboard is a perfectly fine place to discuss whether we should have ads. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the community are in control of the local site interface; and admins merely the functionaries who carry out the community's wishes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the community? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS answers that question nicely. I would like to hear your answer to Andy Mabbett's question. --04:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure who I'm addressing, but the actual answer is that various parts of the site interface come from various places. Most of the user interface comes from the MediaWiki software, which is controlled via developer consensus, though individual local administrators (including myself) have also made substantial customizations via the MediaWiki message namespace. The banners themselves largely come from m:Special:CentralNotice, if they're not local banners. You can read more at Wikipedia:Software notices, a page I created in 2008. Let me know if you have additional questions. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If people don't want AN to be for general discussion like this, then perhaps an Administrators' Noticeboard/Discussion is in order ? Sports guy 17 16:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank

There certainly could be worse things than an ad for our own non-profit organization offering discounts on our own products. Until the banner says "I'm Lovin' It", I don't consider it much an ad. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[30] -- KTC (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ad is spammy and distasteful and should be removed ASAP. We are an encyclopedia, not a discount outlet. It is not our business to be selling stuff and I personally don't want to be associated with "academic" projects who advertise in this sort of manner. Them From Space 20:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The banner doesn't particularly bother me. I actually think it's kind of neat there are Wikipedia scarves. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not great, but that "X" in the upper right hand corner takes care of it pretty well ;) Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I not got it?! Is it some admins equivalent of the GUM (department store) a la 1955, where the WP elites can buy otherwise unavailable to the community luxuries such as soap, metal false teeth and Max Bygraves records? I think we should be told. Irondome (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's displayed for US only, per the post that KTC linked to (but anyone worldwide will get the discount, currently).

If the ad were displayed to all readers, it might be worth grumbling about, but it's only displayed to logged-in users, which seems entirely reasonable. –Quiddity (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have an issue with it at all. My old uni as far back as 81 was selling scarves, bags, mugs etc. I see an analogy. My post was satirical, and I agree with User:Guy Macon that the posting here was arguably problematic in board choice. From the UK, I would like to see the stuff on offer. It is hardly a commercial Mcinvasion, as someone mentioned above. Irondome (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When someone posts something that is completely off-topic (administrators have no power to remove the ad in question, and thus this does not need administrator attention) answering them only encourages more off-topic material. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy Macon. Local administrators are most certainly empowered to suppress the ad in question, either directly by editing the site-wide JavaScript or CSS pages or indirectly by requesting that a Meta-Wiki administrator disable the banner. I'm not sure why you think this discussion is off-topic. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I go by what the top of this page says is and is not appropriate for posting here. If English Wikipedia administrators are allowed to request that a Meta-Wiki administrator disable the banner and ordinary editors are not, that would make it on-topic. I believe that anyone can make such a request. If English Wikipedia administrators are authorized to decide that the ad should be removed, that would make it on-topic. If something is made possible by the software but admins are not allowed to do it, that doesn't count; making an AN request asking an admin to do something that no admin is authorized to do is off-topic. Perhaps I am wrong, but I was under the impression that if an admin were to decide that there those ads should not be there and suppress them, he would be in trouble. Of course he could seek community consensus, but so could any editor.

Earlier, when someone else posted an opinion that this is off-topic you wrote "This noticeboard has been considered a general discussion noticeboard for a very long time. It's certainly more watched and used than an obscure village pump." I didn't say anything then, but I do not believe that you have a consensus for such a radical change to the function of AN, and if you have consensus for it, you should change the instructions at the to of the page.

Ignoring a certain amount of off-topic material as long as it doesn't become excessive or disruptive is one thing. Deciding that everything is on-topic and correcting anyone who says that something is off-topic and should be taken elsewhere is quite another. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: paragraph 1: administrators are definitely empowered. Take a look at what happened with VisualEditor (I think the relevant discussion took place on this very noticeboard) for a recent example. Local administrators largely (though not exclusively) control the site interface. I wrote a bit more above. (By the way, can you link to the community consensus to run these banners? ;-)

Re: "radical change": this isn't very radical. And I'll point out again that it was a pretty experienced Wikipedian who opened the thread here, in addition to another pretty experienced Wikipedian (me) saying that AN is a general noticeboard. It's possible we're both mistaken, but perhaps it's the other way around?

I don't think anyone suggested that anything and everything is suddenly on-topic. Though if the discussion location really gets you so hot and bothered that you want to re-locate it, okay, just leave a pointer and be neat about it. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{archive bottom}} {{hab}}

Unarchiving this section to properly address some of the incorrect comments here. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "scarf" banner certainly looks like an ad to me. I can't see how anyone could say that it's not an advertisement. We should discuss whether such ads are appropriate here. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this is any different than the fundraising banners. It can be easily dismissed if it is really bothering you that much. Of course every time we have a fundraising drive a thread like this pops up as well. Yes, if we had a massive RFC we could decide not to do this. the chances of that getting done before the current sale is over are basically zero. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fundraising banners aren't trying to sell anything. I imagine most editors don't object to this particular advertisement, but it's a reasonable topic to discuss, I think. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{hab}}

Beyond My Ken: Perhaps you could focus on the substantive issues in a thoughtful reply rather than simply trying to close the discussion? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to close down discussion on this topic, I'm merely pointing out what you ought to know already, that this is not the appropriate place to have the discussion. This is a 'community matter, not one for admins, and this is the administrators' noticeboard.

Could someone please close this inappropriate discussion for the third time? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, it has morphed into something that actually is on-topic: MZMcBride's claims about what is and is not off-topic. In my opinion, it should be left open until that meta-issue is resolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, Guy Macon:

This has been a general noticeboard for a very long time.

In any case, if you're really concerned with only the discussion's location, you can move the discussion and leave a redirect. We do this all the time with articles. Collapsing a reasonable discussion and shouting "wrong venue" is, um, unkind and probably harms the attempt at having an honest discussion about whether these types of ads are appropriate.

Perhaps it also wouldn't be unreasonable to extend a bit of good faith that the experienced admin (and apparently also a checkuser) who opened this discussion can be trusted enough to post here, presumably having exercised some judgment in deciding where to post. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. According to m:CentralNotice/Calendar, the proper person to contact is User:Meganhernandez. :) Legoktm (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping for some kind of hipster irony with a banner proclaiming "we can pickle that!" or some kind of artisan, lovingly hand-crafted encyclopedia knit baseball cap with a logo. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And WP logo brass key fobs, lovingly created by the famous Blind monks of Prague. Damn. Seriously. is this discussion really viable in its present form? I suggest closure. This may be a complex issue. It should be redrafted and posted on meta, maybe. Irondome (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. You are harshing my mellow. Forget the blind monks and all hail the Monks of Doom. Represent. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to have voiced myself: "Community"-Me is against that nonsense! Cheers, "Community"-Others, OAlexander (talk) 08:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This one-of-a-kind Wikipedia sweater was handcrafted out of ten years worth of Jimbo's own belly button lint." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose slipping this into the rotation would be right out? —rybec 19:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has at least nostalgic qualities. OAlexander (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support an admin to block the advertisement technically if possible. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I the only one in WP:the community to post at User:Meganhernandez? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 04:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral. There are some good thing about it potentially such that if people on campus start wearing Wikipedia clothes stating that you to can edit, it may increase contributions. Than there is the issue of it being advertising. Maybe a RfC would be the next step? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The merchandise banner came down last Friday, Nov. 15. We ran a four-day campaign as an experiment to spread awareness of the shop as well as to get valuable feedback. In the aftermath of this campaign, we would like to sincerely thank not only the users who purchased merchandise, but those who gave us feedback through surveys and on talk pages. These comments are invaluable to our ability to better tailor the store to users’ needs. We're working on improving the shop and will send more news on future changes. Thank you for the feedback. CCogdill (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a discussion to be had here, but as with at least 4 other people have said, I don't get why this is at AN which as is common for discussions being held at clearly the wrong venue, seems to be discouraging participation. Nil Einne (talk) 12:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Need some Admin assistance please

Due to getting some bad advice from someone at the Teahouse, a new editor did a cut and paste move on an article in AfC, recreating it in mainspace. Could an admin possibly clean this up? The improperly moved article is at Victor Channing Sanborn. The original, which will need to get moved to the name the cut and paste is on, is at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Victor Channing Sanborn. Thanks in advance. I didn't give you any editor's names here, because I am not looking to cause anyone any problems. I would just like the cut and paste move fixed please. John from Idegon (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yunshui 雲‍水 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Yunshui. John from Idegon (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request Block Review of User:MarshalN20

Consensus is to overturn the block. It is contentious whether this article is history related or not. A convincing argument has been made that it is and I would suggest that going forward, MarshalN20 be aware that these disputes will continue to happen when he edits similar articles.--v/r - T P 14:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cut'n'pasted from User talk:MarshalN20#MarshalN20 Block Appeal by Wee Curry Monster talk 09:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently topic banned from topics related to Latin American history. Sandstein blocked me under the assumption that I broke my topic ban restrictions, specifically the "broadly construed" clause of the topic ban. I disagree and request my topic ban appeal be taken to a community discussion board due to the following reasons:

I am topic banned from history of Latin America articles. I am not banned from Latin American culture articles.
My edit summary was not appropriate, and I should not have edit warred in the article in question (however, I did not break the WP:3RR). But this does not justify a 2-month AE block.
The arbitration enforcement block is due to my participation in the article "Chile–Peru football rivalry" (see [31]), a sports article
The Chile-Peru football rivalry is a current event.
The history section of the Chile-Peru football rivalry section is clearly delimited. I have not edited it since the topic ban. WP:Banning policy allows me to edit articles unrelated to the topic ban but not on parts of pages that are:

“

parts of other pages that are related to the topic

”

The non-history sections of the article are related to sports (statistics, facts, etc.).
The first football match between Peru and Chile took place in 1935 (see [32]). This is well after the time of the War of the Pacific in the 19th century.
As part of the unblock request, I would like to apply and obtain a WP:MENTOR. As a friend recommends, I need to learn how to edit smarter and stop becoming a target of others.

Therefore, given the points above, I kindly request the community to remove my account block. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the request of User:EatsShootsAndLeaves, I draw attention to the discussion we had yesterday User talk:EatsShootsAndLeaves#Your revert. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would draw everyone's eyes to about halfway down the discussion that WCM links to above. The short form is this:

MarshalN20 has a topic ban concerning Latin American history, broadly construed.
An editor can break that topic in two ways: 1) make a Latin-American history-related edit anywhere on the project, or 2) edit an article that is clearly and obviously related in any way to Latin-American history.
At the time he edited the article, the lede of this article stated "Peru and Chile have a rivalry that dates back from the War of the Pacific. Previously, the two nations had been on friendly terms sharing mutual alliances during the South American wars of independence and Chincha Islands War. Territorial, maritime, and cultural disputes have fueled tensions since the ending of the War of the Pacific. These historical feuds and lingering bitterness have led to a large football rivalry between both nations" - thus showing that if it wasn't for non-sport-related history, then the rivalry (and thus the article) would not exist. Thus, this article is about Latin American history, broadly construed.
This is his second AE enforcement block - the first 30-day block was removed early due to his promise that he understood, would not push the envelope, and would behave accordingly. As such, by escalation alone, this is a valid 60-day block
As such, regardless of his individual behaviours (i.e. edit-warring, NPA, whatever), he should not have touched that article with a 10 foot pole

ES &L 11:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I know that I said I didn't want to discuss "further behaviours", however, I just dropped by his talkpage. This edit that he made there is atrocious, inflammatory, inappropriate, and shows a continued battleground behaviour. Considering what everyone knows I do for a living, and everyone knows of my ethnicity, "User:EatsShootsAndLeaves went to Peru and Chile during his professional life? Good for him! That doesn't make his position any more valid than if he was to claim "he had black friends" and is, based solely on that, "not racist"." is a more-than offensive statement. If his response to my very polite discussion with WCM is to directly attack my profession AND my ethnicity, then 2 months is too short ES &L 11:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EatsShootsAndLeaves's comments at 11:27 above and also refer to the reasons I gave when making the enforcement block. I recommend to decline this appeal. Sandstein 11:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose History is indeed a broad term, but Latin American history is more specific and this edit represents the second violation by the editor. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock with an admonishment for edit warring. I can see the rationale behind Sandstein's decision, but having looked at the revert in question, the dispute is clearly over what is a current event. Even though there is history in the article lead, the topic is more in the sports culture field, so I can understand MarshalN20 believing that the article was beyond the scope of the topic ban. Even if the article is covered by the topic ban, I would have issued a warning to cease editing that article before going to a two-month block. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
unblock with admonishment as per Sjakkalle. In spite of the lead section, this is clearly a sports and culture article, not a history article in any reasonable sense. The edit dealt with a current, not a historical event, The edit summery was uncivil, regardless of the merits of the actual edit, but that is a matter unrelated to the topic ban. DES ^(talk) 15:38, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock The edit in question, and the article itself are obviously a current event, not history. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline unblock - Clearly and obviously within the terms of the topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock: It is a sports-related article, not related to historical topics. In fact, the inclusion of national wars is off-topic in the lede of that article and should be removed. Don't confuse the article with Chile–Peru relations, which is the one about the bilateral relations of Peru and Chile in history. Only a passing-by view of the article of the football rivalry may make someone think it's a historical topic. The rivalry is influenced by history, as most cultural topics, but it does not belong by itself in the realm of history. That is, you'll never find references to this rivalry in actual history books (except in specialized "history of football" books). Compare with England–Scotland football rivalry, I don't think you would include such article in the "History of Europe" topic, specially if the disputed portion was about the "August 2013 friendly" section. Cambalachero (talk) 19:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To suggest that sports-related articles cannot be historical topics as well is a bit nonsensical. That said, this one is a current event. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if my comments will have any merit on this discussion but in my opinion this rivalry is an extension of the ongoing historical dispute between chile and peru. I've noticed that some are arguing that this rivalry is purely on football terms, my answer to that is look at the Argentina-Brazil football rivalry. Tim Vickery a popular BBC commentator and south American football correspondent sums up this rivalry on the first paragraph (see[33]). That rivalry is purely about football there's no "real military history" between the two. In case of chile and peru there's no evidence the rivalry is purely on football. You've got to judge rivalry on its merits. Eitherway that's my two cents in. --Chelios123 (talk) 05:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock Unless I'm missing something, this, and other iterations thereof, are the only edits in question. To quote WP:TBAN, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as...weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not. Blocking Marshal for this edit is like blocking the weather-banned person for editing the New York article's section on the Erie Canal. Neither one is a violation of the ban, and neither one is grounds for a ban-related block. Nyttend (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock. Marginally bad block to begin with and MarshalN20 promises to give the topic he is banned from an even wider berth. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock - I don't normally comment here on AN, but this was such a poor block I thought it would be best if I did comment. To call his editing of a current event historical seems like really poor judgement. Thankfully we have places like AN to fix mistakes.--Rockfang (talk) 21:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved dmin note I see a 64% favorability toward removing the block with a strong warning for edit waring, but I see stronger arguments made by those supportive of the block who make a strong case that this is about Latin-American history. So, I'm going to request that other uninvolved admins give this discussion another day or so.--v/r - T P 23:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When someone says the "history" topic, the usual things that come to mind are biographies, wars, turning-point events, former heads of state, national heroes, "history of..." sections, historical periods, etc. Even if some users may argue that a sports rivalry should be considered historical, it's clear that it's not among the obvious things that everybody would consider as such, and so MarshalN20 has not edited a history article on purpose. If it's unclear if the sports rivalry is historical or not, the best way to proceed would be to unblock MarshalN20 for the moment, and request a clarification from the Arbitration Comitee on this; with MarshalN20 avoiding the article as if it was included in the ban in the meantime until we get the clarification. Cambalachero (talk) 03:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an IP I cannot vote...but I can comment and I want to state that this is exactly the sort of senseless abuse that I have come to expect from Sandstein, Arbitration Enforcement and the idea that "Broadly construed" topic bans are any benefit. They are not, they are setting the editor up for failure and are impossible. By their logic if I had a topic ban of Latin American topics I couldn't edit Christopher Columbus because he sent a couple nights there; certainly California, Texas and New Mexico are off limits because they are "broadly construed" Latin American related. This block was based on too broad of an interpretation of the badly worded and poorly thought out broadly construed language. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "As an IP I cannot vote..." then why not login to your User:KumiokoCleanStart account? Fram (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why, Sandstein and AE have been allowed unlimited power by Arbcom to do whatever they want with no questions or review. Even if the community votes to undo the block here there is no requirement for Sandstein to do so. Whats more, the broadly construed language will just get them in AE jail again by someone who doesn't like their edits or point of view and they will just keep justifying it with this is the X time, each time looking worse for the editor regardless of the credibility of the accusation. So in the end there is no reason to vote either way because in the end, the editor is eventually going to be blocked anyway. The only way not too is for the user to not edit at all. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock Chile-Peru football rivalry mentions the War of the Pacific once in the lede, the rest of the article looks at win/loss statistics, the two national teams and comments on the nature of the games between the two nations. The lede as currently written does not conform to WP:LEDE in that it doesn't summarise the article and were it not for that single brief reference there would have been no connection to the topic ban. It is clearly a sports article not a history article and with respect to User:TParis I am concerned you would think a brief mention of a historic event in a poorly written lede makes for a strong argument for a AE block. WP:Banning policy clearly allows the editing of sports articles that reference history, provided the topic element of the topic ban is respected. We have here a poorly worded topic ban, one that arbcom itself acknowledged at the time [34] was over broad (see comments by NewYorkBrad). Hence, I am concerned at an overly inclusive interpretation of a badly worded sanction is being applied, which is in turn leading to an editor being blocked for two months. The suggestion to unblock and admonish, together with a reference to arbcom is a proportionate resonse in this case. However, a 2 month AE block is disproportionate and is punitive in nature rather than preventative. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the lede is conforming or not is a red herring: after all, Marshal says he wrote the current lede, and therefore he knew exactly what it said! We have to go by how the article - and thus the lede - read when the supposed action took place. Based on the article at the time, the action was against the topic ban. With regards to 2 months block: that's due to recidivism - nobody's fault but his own. Indeed, he wouldn't have any topic ban if it wasn't for his own behaviour. Note: I have NOT !voted on whether to unblock or keep blocked - I'm merely clarifying some rather mistaken statements ES &L 18:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of an article is not defined by the users listed in the article history, and neither which content is on-topic or off-topic in them. If a sports article that mentions wars in the lede was MarshalN20's mistake years ago, or someone else's mistake, is irrelevant for this discussion. Cambalachero (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your point. The job of the lede is to introduce the topic. If the lede says that the football rivalry is the direct result of incidents in Latin-American history, then it's completely relevant. ES &L 18:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ESL, you and I have already discussed this and agree to disagree as to whether this is a red herring. It is also clear that other editors have looked at the same case and a number agree with my position on this. I'm also sure you would agree it would also be pertinent to note that he has apologised for the remarks you refer to above as evidence of battleground behaviour and clarified they were a poor choice of words rather than a deliberate accusation of racism. Taking the issue of alleged recidivism in hand. His first month long block occurred two weeks after the incident in question, which is acknowledged by all as a technical violation of his topic ban. However, he believed a comment was in order because of the vandalism exemption in WP:Banning policy but it was pointed out to him this only applied in clear cases of vandalism (eg penis comments) he withdrew his comments, struck them out and took no further part in the discussion. Two weeks later after acknowledging his mistake and withdrawing, he is then hit with the block hammer with only a cursory examination of the AE case. The block cited as a basis of charge of recidivism was of itself inappropriate and as an argument for further sanctions is compounding injustice upon injustice. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock MarshalN20 should have known better than to get anywhere near anything that might possibly be construed as being under the remit of his topic ban, however I am not of the belief that his edits are in violation of his topic ban. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
unblock per Nyttend and Sven. Doesn't appear to be an edit in violation of his topic ban, but he should try to steer even "wider than reasonable" around his topic ban. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. I realize I'm going against popular opinion here, but I've a long-standing belief that we need to show editors who are fucking around that we mean business. Why do people get topic banned to begin with? Because they can't check their emotions at the door and edit within some topic matter like a normal person. At this point, if MarshalN20 finds himself editing any article related to anything that happened in the past in Latin America and starts getting all hot and bothered, he should walk away. Instead, he decided to get into an edit war. Is the article peripherally related to Latin American history? Sure, it's a gray area. But why push it? You'd better believe that if I got topic banned from articles about the history of New York and I found myself edit warring in an article about a historical New York sports rivalry, I'd expect to get blocked. It amazes me that people carry on like this and then act like they didn't know they were doing anything. --Laser brain (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock The basis for the block and thus the only question here is whether the discussed topic / editing falls under "history". And I think that the answer on that is clearly "no". North8000 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock. The topic ban very specifically refers to the history of Latin America, not everything on Latin America. They aren't the same. Neither the edit nor the topic is related to Latin American history, so the topic ban was not broken. I'm also a bit concerned that the previous block - to deal with a dispute that Marshal had already long since withdrawn from (thus a violation of WP:PREVENTATIVE) - was taken into account when setting the duration. Kahastok talk 19:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

General sanction notices by non-admins redux

This refers to the closed discussion above ([35]) and the discussion below it. I propose that the wording should be "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned by any editor, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process."

This is more in line with normal processes related to other sanctions, and although warnings of any kind can be misused, I can't see a compelling reason to require warnings to be made by Administrators. See for instance Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions where I see a number of non-Admins logging warnings. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For articles under community sanctions, I 100% support notifications being able to be placed by anyone and everyone. The purpose of the notification is to make sure the person is aware of the sanctions. Even the template used for such purposes makes clear that it's not necessarily a suggestion of guilt. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, wasn't the view you state here also stated above by at least one editor in the original thread above, and rejected with the consensus adopting the alternative proposed by Bbb? If so why reopen on an issue that was settled so recently? SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the posts below by Bbb and the clsoing Admin you may see why. And it made the sanction pretty toothless, which may make some of the people directly involved happy but was not what the community ever intended. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dougweller, could you explain why requiring an admin warning prior to action makes the sanction "pretty toothless". As I understand it, the most this would mean is that an admin would have to warn before acting. On the other hand, the suggested version would create two classes of editors: those who have been warned by anyone and can therefore be blocked immediately and those who get to be warned first. Is that the intent? If so, then it should be clear how this would lead to editors stacking the deck by "warning" other editors. MilesMoney (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of any Admins willing to keep tabs on this area. I have no idea what the difference is between "those who have been warned by anyone" and "those who get to be warned first" as they seem to be the same - not that it matters as the suggestions below wouldn't do that. Nor can I understand why a warning would stack the deck. Warnings give the warned editor 2 choices - ignore the warning and get blocked, respect the warning and don't get blocked. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone hasn't been informed of the sanctions, we presume that they're unaware, so we inform them but don't immediately apply those sanctions. Once they've been informed, though, we go straight to punishment, as they ought to have known better. Therefore, being informed is harmful to an editor. Furthermore, an editor who goes out of their way to inform editors they disagree with but don't inform editors they agree with would be doing the former a disservice. MilesMoney (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miles, if I were an admin then I'd seriously consider topic banning the lot of you right now for general disruptiveness and drama-mongering across a swathe of articles. Hasn't it sunk in yet that this almost-endless lawyering, bickering and pedantic searching for clarificatino of ever more specious points that work in favour of one "side" or against the other is, well, tiring everyone else out? Most admins will walk away when it gets like this, and then they'll snap and come down on you like a ton of bricks. Thery're human, after all. It wouldn't be so bad if the various contributors concerned showed an interest in other topic areas but there are only one or two who seem to do so and this thus becomes something of a travelling circus. You don't need a warning and nor does anyone else who was involved in the original sanctions discussion: you are de facto aware of them and any warning issued is mostly a matter of courtesy. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find anything in your comment that seems relevant to what I brought up, so I'm just going to let it sit there. MilesMoney (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise. The relevance is that I wouldn't like to see those currently involved in the AE drama trying to lawyer their way out of a sanction on the basis that they have not been warned of WP:AEGS, and I know that those involved are apt to lawyer. There is currently an open thread at WP:AE where just this issue has arisen wrt WP:ARBIPA. Your altruism is fine and dandy but do you accept that you and the other regulars in the drama are already sufficiently knowledgable of the sanctions? - Sitush (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:GS/BI doesn't appear to require any warning at all. WP:SCWGS uses a completely different template. WP:GS/MMA is completely different. Even Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions doesn't require {{Uw-probation}}, although it appears that most people use it. Also, it can be tailored by extra text. Nonetheless, I would have no problem if we standardized community-based sanctions with the mandatory use of Uw-probation and that it could be done by any editor. One extra detail: I would prefer to change the language of Uw-probation from " Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits" to " Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits" (bolded change) as often the warning is issued after there is a problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Bbb23 said above. This should be applied to WP:General sanctions and it should be marked as a guideline.--v/r - T P 22:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me also. Dougweller (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I apologize for asking the community to vote again, but based on the above, I propose:

The ~~identical~~ sanctions language proposed by Doug above (added bolded phrase per TP's suggestion below): "Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned by any editor that sanctions have been authorized, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process."
Change Talk:Austrian economics/General sanctions#Log of Notifications to read: "Any editor may alert any other editor that sanctions have been authorized. The alert links to this page and is issued by placing the standard template message – {{subst:Uw-probation}} – on the talk page of the editor being notified. Alerts must be logged here and include the diff of the notification."

(As an aside, I intend to add the word "necessarily" to Uw-probation as I mentioned in the above section. If someone feels that's too bold and requires discussion, they can revert me.)--Bbb23 (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change "despite being warned by any editor" to "despite being warned by any editor that sanctions have been authorized". The way yours is written implies that editors get one freebie violation before they can be sanctioned.--v/r - T P 15:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated your change above. It's a bit wordy, but I understand the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support then.--v/r - T P 16:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dougweller (talk) 19:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Presenting the mace in terms of what sanctions have been authorized is a way to make sure we don't get "But I didn't know" arguments. In practice, the first presentation is in context of a percieved violation of the authorization, but any editor in good standing should be able to irrevocably give notice of the authorization. I know I've had to remind disputants of sanctions in effect to greatly improved behavior. Hasteur (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass revert of AnomieBOT II needed? (Answer: No, carry on.)

AnomieBOT II (talk · contribs) has been making weird edits on various templates (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Disambiguation_needed&diff=582080428&oldid=581202663, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASelf&diff=582081088&oldid=581995440).

I'm unsure of how much damage has been done, and if all those edits are undesired, but someone should take a look at things. I started reverting some of the edits, but since I'm unsure which were done erroneously and which actually worked, I've created this thread instead so people can take a look at things.

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Module:Unsubst and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT II 2. The only problem I'm aware of at the moment that is to Template:Self, and the bot is stopped now while I work on that and then check if any other edits had the same problem. Anomie ⚔ 19:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nothing to see here. I jumped the gun based on some confusion. Sorry for the panic. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've gone through the bot's edits and reverted any others that had this problem. I've also updated the bot to prevent this from recurring. Anomie ⚔ 19:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Universe 2014

This article was re-created since its 2nd AFD. It was tagged for "speedy deletion" twice, and someone else removed it, insisting that addition of references change everything. I wanted to request undeletion in WP:REFUND, but I guess I must discuss this first with you. --George Ho (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who did not create the article I am able to remove the speedy deletion tag. You have said[36] on my talk page: "I don't know whether changes are substantial or not". So why are you proposing it for speedy deletion for being significantly similar to a deleted page when you don't know that it is?

The article in question was last deleted in May of this year, but the current article includes no fewer than 9 references that were written after the deletion. They are facts like who the contestants are going to be, which weren't decided until after the last deletion. I submit that it can't possibly be "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of the old article. ParacusForward (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blogspot and some primary sources do not count as a drastically different article. I've deleted it under CSD G4.--v/r - T P 01:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I don't understand this decision. When the original discussion[37] took place one of the editors agreeing with deletion thought the article should be recreated in 2013 or 2014. And at the last deletion discussion[38] one of the 2 voters said: "Too soon. Don't yet know where it will be, or who will be there." The page is gone now, but I recall that we now knew where it was going to be and at least 9 of the contestants.

I can't really judge the decision properly because I can't access article that existed the last time deletion was discussed. I guess while anyone can nominate an article for WP:CSD#G4 only administrators can truly judge the merits of such a request. I'm surprised it fulfilled the speedy deletion criteria, because the reason for deletion no longer applied (new facts had come forward) and it was a different article (new references). ParacusForward (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read this policy and then find sources that meet it--v/r - T P 02:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are linking to that page. The reliability of the sources has absolutely nothing to do with even an A7 speedy delete. This was a WP:CSD#G4 speedy delete which has a completely different criteria: the article must be a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted". There are two reasons why a speedy delete would not be appropriate: an article which is "not substantially identical to the deleted version" or "reason for the deletion no longer applies." It seems logical to me that the page that was speedily deleted fit both of those criteria. I don't know that I object to the article being deleted, but I don't think a speedy delete is appropriate. I would appriciate it if someone else who can see the original article can confirm that it meets the strict WP:CSD#G4 criteria. ParacusForward (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked two different pages — 2014 Miss Universe and 2016 Formula One — and can confirm that they're nowhere near being reposts. G4 is definitely strict, and it's completely unrelated to matters of sourcing. Keep it up, because the application of this criterion to these articles is blatant abuse of our speedy deletion policy. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Formula One Season is mostly a cut and paste of 2015 Formula One season. Everything from Team and driver changes down. The section is partially a cut and paste....William 23:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ParacusForward's other contributions

User:ParacusForward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I notice that ParacusForward declined speedy deletion on Christmas with Irving James & Friends, but this article is a mess and may not meet WP:NMUSIC (or indicate importance). Check his other contributions. --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Christmas with Irving James & Friends is a mess and may not meet WP:NMUSIC. New pages often are, but I don't believe it meets the requirements for speedy deletion. It plainly says at WP:CSD#A9 that this is a lower standard than WP:NMUSIC. It says that "An article about a musical recording that has no corresponding article about its recording artist." I showed that it did not meet this requirement here[39]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParacusForward (talk • contribs) 04:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? Having a minor contributing artist with a Wikipedia page still doesn't establish notability. Irving Jame himself does not have a page and can be deleted as such. I don't know why you turned down my CSD nomination. KonveyorBelt 04:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I turned down the nomination because a speedy delete has specific criteria, and, as I explained above, this article did not meet it. We seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of this page: WP:CSD. It says "It is irrelevant whether the claim of notability within the article is not sufficient for the notability guidelines." Irving James is the producer of the album, the WP:CSD#A9 page does not say the producer must have a Wikipedia page. ParacusForward (talk) 04:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article can be PRODded anytime. Feels that the whole system is either manipulated or abused, and I won't say that it wasn't you. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ParacusForward with only 25 edits to mainspace clearly lacks sufficient experience to patrol pages. Either they agree unconditionally to refrain from patrolling and tagging pages until they have a knowledge compatible with the task, or be Tbanned from patrolling. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See #Miss Universe 2014. George Ho (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize my actions constituted patrolling. I think all of my actions followed a plain-text interpretation of the WP:CSD page, but I can see how WP:SNOW applies in this area and it seems that there is a culture of rubber stamping these that I wasn't able to pick up from my reading. If no one here cares to defend me, I clearly need more experience. ParacusForward (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, rubber stamping is exactly what we endeavour to avoid. You certainly need more experience before tagging pages, but this is not a criticism - everyone has to start somewhere. If my comment on your talk page or here appeared to be a little impatient, it's because we have enormous problems at NPP, such as this morning with only one patroller on duty, and up to 1,000 pages a day being created. If you can learn fast, you are welcome to help out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being the first to be even a little supportive of a new editor trying to help the project. I feel I have been rather shabbily treated in all this. The first indication that anyone objected to any of my edits was this[40] post here on AN. George didn't talk to me before relisting the article for speedy delete nor did he reference the concerns with a speedy delete I had originally brought up when adding his to the article. It seemed reasonable to me that he hadn't even seen it.

Rather than discussing the topic with me there was an immediate post on the administrator board, a witch-hunt: "Check his other contributions"[41], and accusations of bad faith[42]. And then you propose I be banned from the area when no one has pointed to policy I violated and I haven't done any changes since objections were raised. I was hoping someone here would support me even a little, but this place isn't very friendly to newbies. I can understand why the area is understaffed. ParacusForward (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents here is that neither of his declines were hugely unreasonable. In one case there were new sources and in the other, it did does have a credible assertion of notability (Emmy award-winners being involved will do that, though I don't know that I believe the statement is true). I personally would have declined the one on the album and either sent it to AfD or prodded it (there is nearly no chance it meets WP:N). I'd probably have let the Miss Universe speedy stand. In other words, I think you all need to back off a bit. In any case, a trout to George for apparently bringing this to AN before discussing it with the user. That seems outrageous given that there was no pressing issue that needed to be quickly resolved. WP:BITE and all that... Hobit (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with Hobit. Had I encountered the G4 tag on Miss Universe 2014 I would have removed it myself, for the obvious reason that the article does have some substantial differences to the version that went to AfD. Christmas with Irving James & Friends is a slightly closer call, but there's certainly no reason to censure someone for removing that tag. If anything, Paracus appears to be one of the good guys who applies the CSD as they are meant to be applied - highly specifically, and with close attention to the possible exceptions. There's certainly nothing in his editing I can see that merits dragging him here, and I'd recommend this thread be closed and archived as soon as possible. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support his declines. For the record album. It unambiguously does not meet the speedy criterion, and anyone who did tag it was wrong, and any admin who deleted it on that ground needs a review of WP:CSD. In the other case there were news sources; as non-admins can not see the deleted article, it is reasonable to remove the tag is they think it might be an improved version. Lack of notability is not a speedy criterion. , I'm surprised at some of the comments. The new ed may need experience in other respects, but these two actions were correct. I think we need to apologize him for the actions of more experienced people who understand less than he does. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, having looked over a number of ParacusForward's other speedy declines again a bit more thoroughly, I'd say he's doing a bang-up job removing inappropriate CSD tags. CAT:CSD is a page I patrol almost daily, and I've lost count of the number of times I've had to remove hastily-added tags where the CSD criteria were not only unmet, but completely irrelevant to the page. If anything, we need more non-admins who are willing to look through that category, find sources and delist articles that don't deserve the swift guillotine of speedy deletion: as far as I can tell, ParacusForward is just such a contributor. He's to be commended, not condemned. Yunshui 雲‍水 16:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is? How about his removal[43] of the CSD tag on 2016 Formula One season? That article went through AFD but has constantly been recreated(A problem all future Formula One seasons have had. Would you believe there was a 2019 Formula One article in 2010? The 2013 or 2014 FO article was speedy deleted five or six times.) since. Twice in the last month before a third time yesterday. It was speedy deleted two times and should be again with a healthy dose of WP:SALT till at least next summer or it will be recreated again before Christmas. Heck I'd give even money its up again less than 10 days after an AFD closes as delete. Which is where it is headed at present....William 17:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William, have you ever made a mistke at CSD? I certainly have., and I feel much worse about the ones I;ve deleted thant shouldn't have been, than the ones that I could have removed by speedy, but got deleted later. The rule there is that except for vandalism and libel and BLP violations and undoubted copyvio, it's always safer to delete the tag. If something still needs to be removed quickly, you can ask for a speedy delete at afd; if the content is a real problem, you can blank it in the process. G4 is a perennial problem criterion because a non admin cannot see the deleted content, & there are always disputes about how far something must be improved to pass it 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<ec with DGG>OK, first of all the article is at a different name than it was deleted at via an AfD and the person who placed the speedy tag didn't link to the other discussion. That would make it appear to be an invalid speedy. Secondly, speedy deleting something like this based on 3-year-old AfD isn't the right call. So even if he did find the history, it's a reasonable decline. Sure, it will likely get deleted at AfD but A) it was reasonable to decline and and B) that something gets deleted at AfD doesn't mean that removing the speedy was the wrong thing to do. Hobit (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody is playing games with these constant recreations and I'll give you two reasons for my opinion- The present article reminds me too much of one of previous creations. Not the last one, but one from October or earlier. The editor who created this version is almost brand new to Wikipedia. That suggests somebody's sockpuppet. Who it belongs to, I have no idea. Secondly- The newly named article is ever so slightly spelled different(Season rather than season) than its previous versions. I don't think that's an accident but an attempt to escape detection. At least one other editor, other than myself, have confessed to having 2016 Formula One season and some more distant years on their watch list. If it is deleted again at AFD, the article will be back again within the month if not much earlier as sure as snow will fall in Alaska between now and Christmas....William 18:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of that, these pages do not meet the speedy deletion criteria. For example, the 2016 Formula One season is a completely new page, not a repost, and the 2014 Miss Universe page before AFD was three gibberish sentences, two empty sections, and a tiny list of a few countries. Nothing like the new creations! Deleting these articles under G5 is a blatant abuse of the process; you're going to have to get consensus for a new criterion or for a vastly expanded current criterion if you want these to be eligible for deletion based on these AFDs. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted in October, what did it look like then?(BTW I said this version didn't look like the one before it) Or the one deleted last June? I think the Season page was deleted too once before(Like February of last year). Did you check this section in the 2015 article[44] against the 2016 article[45]? It is a cut and paste of 2015 onto 2016 and even says it. There's a citation needed tag on both articles in the same place.

No the abuse of process are the sockpuppetry that's going on. Look at the editors of the the most recent version, and the one before that. A brand new editor doing an article. In the last case, a article with numerous citations. That, these editors disappearing shortly after the recreations, and being SPAs and the constant recreations, three since March 15, smell of somebody's socks. I've done enough Ryan kirkpatrick hunting to know the tell tale signs....William 23:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to ask for pages to be deleted under G5, "created by sockpuppets of blocked or banned users", you can do it. Don't abuse a different criterion to get pages without spending the effort to demonstrate that sockpuppetry is going on. You could have made it far easier if you'd tagged the page as a copyvio, which it is, because it's a copy of the 2015 article without any attribution whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war 2011 - cities and towns - history‎

Hi. I don't know what to do about this article. See this thread on my talk about it. I'm not sure what the best remedy is here, but I know that I don't seem to have much traction with the user in question. I may have been in error. Feel free to point out if so. I went to the talk page for WikiProject Syria to post a query there about it, but there doesn't seem to be much traffic on that page. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I notified the user for you, do that first next time.) The "considerable discussion" Andre alludes to is as far as I can see a unilateral decision, and a poor, uninformed one at best. I tried to read through all of it, and I don't know exactly what he's trying to do (User:Tradedia, could you explain what's going on? I sure as hell can't). I don't think you were wrong, Killiondude. Ansh6 6 6 02:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big question to me is what YOU are trying to do, Killiondude ?

I do not see any problem with trying to help rearrange a site that fails to function properly due to the inability of Mediawiki to properly display the page.

Everything I (and others) are doing is in cooperation with Tradedia, the creator of the original page.

So where is the problem ? I get the impression of facing a bunch of control freaks. How does that improve Wikipedia ?

Note, for one, that the function of speedy delete does in no way precludes at least contacting the creator of a page if it is unclear what they seem to be trying to do. Most civilized people, including myself, would consider that common courtesy. André437 (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute

The template at the top of the page states that it's a guideline, but then the template right under it states that it's an essay. Which is it? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irony. At any rate, SilkTork made the change on November 19, 2012 per this discussion and this ambiguity has existed since then. I've removed the tag that said it was an essay, since the discussion he closed was a proposal to make both one, consolidated guideline. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request to revert move of Galicia (Eastern Europe)

Few days ago Galicia (Eastern Europe) was moved without discussion to Galicia (Central and Eastern Europe), then to current Galicia (central Europe). Bot fixed the first redirect, so it cannot be undone by non-admin. I request that the article is restored to the original name, and a proper WP:RM is started: this move is controversial and shouldn't be done in the non-discussion way it has. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RM you should list this there as a technical request ("If the page has recently been moved without discussion, you may revert the move and initiate a discussion on its talk page. If you are unable to revert, request it below." (underline added)) Since the redirect has been edited, an admin at RM will have to undo it. Just an FYI for the future, but since it is already here, meh. Rgrds. --64.85.215.96 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the article back to Galicia (Eastern Europe) and applied temporary move protection. I'll be leaving WP:ARBEE notices for the two editors who made the recent undiscussed moves. Moves of articles in this part of the world often have national motivations that are sometimes quite openly and frankly expressed on the talk pages. People seem to feel it is more of an honor for their region to be central than eastern, or something. Though these editors may be working in good faith, the net effect of impulsive article moves (when there is a patchwork of nationalities) can be disruptive. The definition of central Europe has been in dispute before. EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martina Moreau has embarked on a unilateral program of moving certain pages that she think fit better under central than eastern Europe. See Special:Log/Martina Moreau for more than a dozen examples dating from 16 November. In my opinion all of these moves should be rolled back. In most cases this can be done without admin assistance and I see that some have already been done. I've left Marina a warning of a block in case of further moves of this type without discussion. She's been on Wikipedia since January but I don't think she gets the concept of WP:CONSENSUS. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe rollback should have been used when the damage was first discovered but, at this point, Editors have been working yesterday and today to revert and fix the 300+ edits on this one issue that were done on Saturday. I can't say that we got to all of them but I imagine we resolved a good 90%. I don't have rollback rights but I don't think you can rollback all of an Editors edits once others have edited these same pages. It was quite a lot of work to undo manually. It showed me that a well-intentioned but misguided Editor with an entire day to edit Wikipedia can do a lot more damage than a reckless vandal can do. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liz is absolutely correct regarding rollbacks. Many of the articles had been edited post-move and valid content would have been lost. It's a pity that such drastic changes can't be prevented without impinging on any user's right to edit on a more comprehensive level. I've always been uncomfortable about pushing the 'be bold' line without tempering it with 'but not reckless'. It's a line that gets crossed constantly and thrown back as justification for reworking existing articles, categories, etc. in a destructive (as opposed to constructive) manner all too often. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Poop

This article was speedy deleted numerous times before salting in 2007. However, several commercially published books have since written about the term, meaning it's now (IMHO) notable. A new version of the article is parked in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/YouTube Poop, but it can't be moved to mainspace because of the protected title. Could an admin please unsalt this? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, unprotected. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any chance of doing the talk page too? ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mark Arsten (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One day left to nominate, Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013

There is just over 1 day left for candidates in the December 2013 Arbcom election to Nominate themselves. There are currently only 9 candidates running for 9 open seats, and while there are often last minute nominations, I wanted to remind everyone that time is running out to nominate yourself. Nominations close at 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday the 19th. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've never voted in the ArbCom elections. Is there a place to sign up for a notification when voting begins? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting starts on November 25th. 28bytes (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

template:very long

I'm unsure if this template is overused. However, I don't find size a major issue, unless I find size obstructing my readability and ability to edit per WP:article size. Cat was tagged as "very long", but the tag was removed as unproductive. Can someone here check its transclusions? --George Ho (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People have to remember that we're aiming for page delivery to the broadest possible audience, meaning that while myself and probably most regulars on WP have no problem with pages greater than 50k of prose, readers with low-end computing devices, smaller screens, limited bandwidth, or other reasons will have problems, and hense why WP:SIZE needs to be kept in mind. Cat is 93k of prose text which just sneaks in under the "split" recommendation of SIZE, hence why it was considered unproductive; at least, in a case like this, if you believe the article was long, you probably should have a recommended course of action for how to deal with it than just tagging it. --MASEM (t) 21:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coffee

I'm not sure what's going on with this Admin, but he seems to be acting in an aggresive, unseemly and uncostructive manner towards good fath contributors. He threatened me for using the argument "Keep per substantial coverage in reliable source" at articles for deletion discussions. He's removed a very experienced and competent editor's autopatrol rights because he thinks some of his articles should be deleted (the three I just checked at actual Articles for Deletion discussions all appear headed towards keep outcomes). He's made snide comments to me and other veterans including DGG. I think this admin needs to be reined in. He's acting inappropriately and like a jerk. Maybe he needs a break? Thanks for any assistance. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some diffs linking to where the behavior you're complaining about has happened? It can be very difficult for someone who has no idea what you're talking about to wade through your and/or his contributions and find what you're referring to, and until we know what you're talking about we can't analyze what's going on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff for the revocation.[46] There are no other diffs on this issue (I'm sure User:Candleabracadabra provide them for the other issues) - it came right out of the blue. St Anselm (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was stunned to see User:In ictu oculi's rights revoked. Am I missing something? It was for creating articles that should be speedily deleted, but I don't see any deletion notifications on the user's talk page. In the absence of a good reason, the In ictu oculi's rights should be reinstated immediately. As for User:Coffee, it certainly looks like he/she was an involved admin (as the nominator of the deletion discussion on the biblical articles - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the woman of Shunem and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath), and the revocation seems like it's being used a weapon in deletion debates. St Anselm (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candleabracadabra - I've checked every page where you and Coffee interacted and I see nothing like what your describing. [47]--v/r - T P 00:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He told me that making the arugment "Keep per substantial coverage in reliable sources" may be considered disruptive twice (on my page and on his). Coming from an admin this a serious threat. He should take back these statements, as there's no basis in policy stating that sources have to be provided in support of statements at deletion discussions. No good faith editor should be bullied and threatened in this manner. It might seem minor to others, but when you accuse those acting in good faith and in a manner consistent with policy of disrupting Wikipedia that is highly problematic. Do his statements constitute a warning and will I be subject to a block if I argue that something should be Kept because it's covered substantially in reliable independent sources? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the editor interaction analyzer is broken. This edit, for example, doesn't show up. St Anselm (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this subject an appropriate speedy deletion Bartholomeus Ruloffs and what about Raffaele Mertes (noted in existed articles)?

I am not an admin so I cannot view the deleted content, but given the links and mentions in existing articles regarding the subject I think a proper deletion discussion would have been more appropriate. It is my understanding that speedy deletions don't show up in an admin's editing log (although I think there was some other way to see them), I would appreciate it if someone could review those undertaken by Coffee. These articles seem reasonable to me so I'm not sure on what basis they are getting blasted? Again, I don't have access to what was there, so maybe I am off. But given his other recent actions I think it's worth someone having a look. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Turgay Erdener. I am only able to see these because he's also removed wikilinks from numerous articles to these now speedily deleted articles. If someone wants to provide me a list of the articles he's speedily deleted I will try to look through them. But it might be better if others (one or more) had a look. I'm not looking for a fight. I just think that good faith editors and their work should be treated with some respect. Isn't that at the core of what civility is supposed to be about? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - St Anselm alerted me to this discussion. I wonder if User Coffee's use of admin tools relates to my response (listing the notability criteria) on Lingdian (band), not exactly well known in the west, but one of the top dozen Chinese rock bands of the 90s and internationally promoted after signing to JVC.

I was unaware of 19:20, 18 November 2013 Coffee (talk | contribs) deleted page Raffaele Mertes (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person) (TW)). The A7 was placed without notification despite interlinks to it:Raffaele Mertes, de:Raffaele Mertes, pl:Raffaele Mertes. Again not well known in English-speaking countries, but even if I used Italian sources (quite likely, I can't remember) a simple Google Book check would find entry in Encyclopedia of Television Film Directors Jerry Roberts - 2009 p385 "RAFFAELE MERTES Movies: Esther (1999), Mary Magdalene (2000), The Apocalypse (2002) A cinematographer who has shot many international co-productions, Mertes's Biblical films as director of photography include Roger Young's ...". I would expect a notification for a deletion of a sourced BLP on someone with it. de. and pl. interwikis.

My question would be, was Raffaele Mertes "targeted" because I was the stub creator, or is it statistically likely that it was coincidence? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like User:Coffee needs to explain his or her actions in these matters. From the information above, I suggest that we reinstate the Raffaele Mertes article. St Anselm (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Second comment - I was also unaware of Turgay Erdener. The composer tr:Turgay Erdener is a widely noted figure in Turkish guitar and film music. I can remember that footnotes included (1) his bio in Evin İlyasoğlu 71 Turkish composers 2007 p211 and (2) Ahmet Say The Music Makers in Turkey 1995 "Turgay ERDENER (b. 1957) The first most important composer of young generation, Erdener has proved his prolificacy with his recent works. At the State Conservatory of Ankara he started in 1968, he studied ..." etc. But that isn't the issue. Normally with deleting a reasonably well known Turkish composer an AFD rather than a speedy should be used, in order to allow Alerts time to register with WikiProject Turkey and WikiProject Composers for example.

Again, was this coincidence or was Erdener's BLP stub speedied because I created the stub? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I currently only have access to reply via my cell phone, so I can't write the long dissertations I normally do for these matters. I can only state that all of my actions were done within the realms of policy and nothing more. What Candleabracadabra's intentions are here, well I'm not entirely certain. The one direct interaction I've had with this user was regarding him treating the AFD process like a vote and failing to provide sources along with his argument. This was of course after I had seen him do this on several different AFDs that I was reviewing, and I perceived this as disruptive behavior and told him to cite the references he was claiming were available. I found this to be a simple request, obviously he did not. Nonetheless, fellow admins can review the articles I deleted and ensure they were done in accordance with policy. If someone informs me this is not the case I'll gladly restore them, but I'm fairly certain that won't happen. Lastly, it's standard procedure to remove the autopatrolled right if there appears to be a pattern of creating articles that can be speedied... again I'm feeling fairly confident in my actions here, but I'm always open to constructive criticism. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third comment - likewise I received no notification for the deletion of Bartholomeus Ruloffs. The composer who created what was noted as the most successful 18th Century opera in Dutch and has 3,000 Google Book hits is not a natural candidate for unnotified speedy deletion. I cannot remember what the sources were, presuming they included Dutch Culture in a European Perspective 2004 and The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Opera 1996 in both of which the composer receives extensive mention. The article was tagged with WikiProject Netherlands and WikiProject Opera, both projects should have been given the chance to see an alert for this deletion. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with these articles is that information wasn't in them, as they stood they simply did not assert notability (unless I'm losing my ability to read). — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 01:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from whether the articles should have been speedied, there are still the questions remaining as to why User:In ictu oculi wasn't informed about the speedy nominations, and why he wasn't warned before his rights were revoked. St Anselm (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[ec] Although I've not found the threats and snide comments to which Candleabracadabra refers, I've checked the speedy deletions, and I can say this: Coffee isn't going to be able to restore at least some of these pages, because they're so far from good candidates that I've simply restored them outright. In ictu oculi has unambiguously demonstrated notability for Raffaele Mertes and Bartholomeus Ruloffs, so I restored RM and will restore BR momentarily. I'm tempted to restore the autopatrolled right as well, but I'll leave that to someone else to prevent objections of "WP:INVOLVED!" Let me suggest that the presence of articles in several other Wikipedias is by itself a sufficient claim of importance to ward off an A7 deletion: it may not suggest notability, but it shows that the person either is deemed important internationally (in which case we shouldn't delete without AFD), or that the person is spamming himself, so the article should be deleted as spam, criterion G11, which is "firmer" in the sense that it won't be overturned as easily as an A7 deletion will. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with those pages being restored if the assertion of notability is formally established. As the articles were wrote at the time of my deletions this assertion simply wasn't there, and interwiki links do not make this assertion (unless there's some huge policy I've failed to read on that). As to the failure to notify, that is my fault. I thought Twinkle did it automatically, but this is evidently not the case. Regardless, until IIO can convince me he's not making stubs that are empty of a notability assertion I'm not certain why he should have it restored. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't any discussion of the deletions on In Ictu Oculi's talkpage, so I'm puzzled; which discussion led to the removal of autopatrolled? Was it a discussion at a different AfD? bobrayner (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it thinking it wouldn't be that controversial of a decision if he had made articles that qualified for speedy deletion... As the autopatrolled right does nothing more than cause the articles to bypass the patrollers. It was a strictly pragmatic move. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You revoked the user rights of an editor with 74,000 edits, and you didn't think it would be controversial? St Anselm (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. It seemed like a rather run of the mill action to take. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

De-linked - based on Candleabracadabra's comment above I just checked and see User:Coffee delinked 20 articles from the Dutch and Turkish composers and Italian filmmaker unnotified speedy deleted. Can User:Coffee be requested to restore the blue links please? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd gladly do so (if we're taking about the ones notability was just established for)... but I'm obviously limited by being on my phone. If another editor/admin wants to, they are free to do so. Otherwise it will have to wait until tomorrow morning when I'm back at my computer. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems User:Nyttend has already restored 16 of the 20 links, waiting on the Turkish composer for the others. I have just seen another one on my Watchlist. vi:Phan Văn Hùm which is preserved on Google as Phan Văn Hùm as follows: Phan Văn Hùm (9 April 1902 - 1946) was a Vietnamese Trotskyite. He was killed by the Viet Minh in the days following the Japanese surrender in Vietnam at the .." Phan Van Hum + Trotskyite gets 82 hits in English Google Books, which of them were used in the stub I have no idea. But this and the contributions history makes it evident that Coffee's Speedys and AFDs were selected on the basis of the editor not the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply to your final point there in the morning.— Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy's and AFDs came after a review on your recent edits (sparked by my response at the aforementioned AFD)... however, the decision to either delete the articles or create the AFDs was not based on them being yours, but instead on my perceived observation that these articles didn't pass WP:CSD or other relevant policy. I had intended on you being notified of this through the WP:TW system I use... but it appears that is not an automatic feature of the extension. As such, it seemed in my eyes that you would have been able to contact me on my talk page if you had an argument for how these articles did indeed meet the intent of WP:CSD (in which case they would have been restored)... obviously this was not the case, and I have to take full responsibility for that. At any rate, there were no malicious intentions against you in my actions. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tired admin needs his rest - It's been an eventful discussion gentlemen, but I'm afraid I need to get some rest. Please be aware that I won't be able to reply to your questions or concerns until tomorrow morning (I will ensure to set some time aside to do so). Thank you for your understanding, and a good night to you all. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tired admin - ? seriously, what about the rest of us?

I'm sorry but neither that, nor the attitude to WP:SNOW Keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the woman of Shunem or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raising of the son of the widow of Zarephath seem to show any step down from the stance being taken. There are two sets of issues here:

(1) relates to normal editor/User rights/behaviours - were the Prods/AfDs targeted against a particular fellow editor?

(2) use of admin tools. I'm not familiar with the rules here. Is it normal to both A7 prod and then self-implement immediately one's own prod on a sourced article? Since the edit history has vanished it is impossible to tell how much time elapsed between prodding Raffaele Mertes, Bartholomeus Ruloffs, Turgay Erdener, Phan Văn Hùm and implementing own Prod.

User:Coffee/PROD_log does not show these prods, it only shows Raising of the son of the widow of Nain: PROD; notified 69.10.125.10 (talk · contribs) 21:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC) and Raising of Jairus' daughter where the creators were notified. Also the use of admin tools in unnotified removal of reviewer/autopatroller status.

In the meantime can someone please restore Turgay Erdener and Phan Văn Hùm - if needed quick look at tr.wp and vi.wp as per comments above. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turgay Erdener restored, incorrect speedy, sources provided make it at worst an AfD candidate, at best an acceptable article topic. Fram (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please elaborate? I'm always willing to see things through a different perspective, but I'm not quite understanding how two brief mentions about a person establish a claim/indication of importance. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind this request... MLauba seems to have answered my question. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 16:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored autopatrolled, as the grounds for given for removal have been mooted. There's one thing my tired colleague may have forgotten yesterday, the nuance in the WP:CSD#A7 criterion which excludes any article that makes a credible claim of importance - articles that do so even while failing to pass the WP:GNG cannot be speedied under A7. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I'm still failing to see where the claim of importance was in any of these articles at the time of their deletion. If we're saying it was in the references, I still don't see it (except perhaps in the case of Bartholomeus Ruloffs). And if we're saying it's the fact that they had references at all, well that's simply not in the policy (as far as I know). I read and re-read the policy yesterday and I tried to ensure these deletions were done in accordance with it. Obviously I'm still missing something or perhaps... fell down a flight of stairs. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coffee, I may be suffering from that same problem involving stairs and an over-zealous enforcement of the laws of gravity, but it was my impression that by long-standing consensus, any reference in an article that isn't obviously bogus is to be interpreted as a claim of significance. Indeed, it means at least one third party independent source has taken note of the article's subject. Now those references may not stand up to scrutiny, they may be trivial mentions, they may not be reliable, but when any of this needs to be determined, A7 is ruled out. The claim hasn't to be proven in order to disqualify for A7, it merely has to be made. Now some of these articles may be borderline, but "was a significant early step towards producing an opera in Dutch", or an inclusion into a reference work on contemporary Turkish musicians, really are claims of importance that merit a closer examination. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well in that case I'll just go back in my corner. But, can we get that added to the actual policy anyways? As, I was not aware of (or have forgotten) that particular stipulation... and I've been here for several years. Also... I imagine then that this too would be creating a claim of importance via the presence of a reference (the idea that she was signed by a particular label doesn't seem to make that claim on it's own...)? I seem to have a habit of learning through mistakes like this... perhaps one day I'll eventually be infallible. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not active enough by several orders of magnitude to offer any more substantive input. I've taken the liberty of userifying that article and bring the matter up at WT:CSD, I could very well do with a good cup of clarifying third party opinions myself. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay image back and forth

Not sure how to handle this one: New user, Queen Azshara with a total of four edits (half of them reverts - more on that in a sec) has uploaded a cosplay image of the character Mara Jade in the article of the same name. The image is from Commons, and normally, we use images from commons, but…its a cosplay image of some person dressed up like the character.
After the cosplay image was uploaded to Commons, it was inserted into the Mara Jade article, and the new contributor has reverted it back in twice already without explanation. If I didn't AGF, I'd suspect that the contributor is an SPA with a personal stake in ensuring that the image remain in place (its easier to get a convention gig - and better pay - if your image is the one actually used in Wikipedia for a fictional character).
I've tried contacting the user, to no avail. I have reverted it out twice already. I suspect that Queen Azshara will undoubtedly revert it back once again. I am unsure how to proceed, apart from either asking for a semi-prot'ing of the article and addressing the Commons licensing; the image is not actually that of Mara Jade, but an amateur pretending to be her. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User: Queen Azshara notified. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's forget about motives for a moment; sadly we have yet to find a way to reliably investigate the contents of editors' minds, let alone base policy on it. (A large proportion of images are added to articles by those images' creators).

Let's focus on three other points: Does the image improve the article or not? Is there a genuine copyright problem on Commons? And does this issue belong at WP:AN? bobrayner (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the questions in the order asked:

1. No, as the image is not of the article's subject.

2. I haven't a clue, except for the aforementioned problem with the labeling of the image as someone it is pretty definitely not.

3. Seeing as I am unsure how to proceed int he face of a new editor willing to revert themselves into oblivion, I thought that one of you fine, experienced peeps might help ejumikate the new contributor. They aren't listening to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reviewer

There is already an image (if used under Fair Use arguments) that is more canonical in terms of what the subject of the article looks like, so no this image does not improve the article.
Taking a photo of your own creation is not a copyright issue (unless the photo is not theirs to begin with).
This probably belongs at WP:ANEW, but since it's here we might as well deal with it
(and this is the big one) Queen Azshara claims that the image is their own work so they have a conflict of interest in promoting it. Edit warring to get their image in is a real big no no. That they refuse to discuss is indicative that they don't understand the purpose of Wikipedia.

I was independent up to the point that I reverted the addition as well.Hasteur (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Independent until I reverted the user) Agree the image is not appropriate and almost certainly a COI, but the more pressing issue is the blatant edit warring and failure to discuss either via edit summaries, the talk page, or the user's own talk page. I have opened a report at WP:ANI/EW but, as Hasteur rightly points out, it would be better to keep discussion in one place, so if we can handle it here then all the better.--Korruski^Talk 15:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Queen Azshara is now blocked 48 hours per the complaint at WP:AN3#User:Queen Azshara reported by User:Korruski (Result: 48 hours). EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WMF cease and desist against WikiPR

Hey all,

Because there has been a substantial amount of discussion on this topic here I wanted to point out a blog post (and linked file) that the WMF just posted about a cease and desist that was sent to WikiPR regarding the community ban and sock/meat puppetry. Jalexander--WMF 21:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its great to see the WMF stepping in. I'll post a link to here from relevant notice boards. Thanks Ross Hill (talk) 21:06, 19 Nov 2013 (UTC) 21:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! Thank you, WMF, for bringing out the big Gunn to stop Wiki-PR. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I'ma get legal on your ass." Giant Snowman 21:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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