Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

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

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Administrative discussions

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN_appeal

(Initiated 32 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the {{User:MiszaBot/config}} at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter |algo=old(7d) which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive366#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy?

(Initiated 21 days ago on 28 October 2024) Discussion has slowed for the last week. I think the consensus is pretty clear, but I'm involved. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

 Note: discussion has been archived. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Requests for comment

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline

(Initiated 101 days ago on 9 August 2024)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline is WP:PROPOSAL for a new WP:SNG. The discussion currently stands at 503 comments from 78 editors or 1.8 tomats of text, so please accept the hot beverage of your choice ☕️ and settle in to read for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#RfC: Referring to International Churches of Christ (ICOC) as a cult in the lead

(Initiated 60 days ago on 19 September 2024) Legobot removed the RFC template on 20/10/2024. Discussoin has slowed. Can we please have a independent close. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... I've read the whole discussion, but this one is complex enough that I need to digest it and reread it later now that I have a clear framing of all the issues in my mind. Ideally, I'll close this sometime this week. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This issue has been going on in various discussions on the talk page for a while so there is no rush. TarnishedPath^talk 03:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: just checking in here. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still working on this, and I apologize for the delay. Because of my health problems, I only occasionally have days where I am fit to take on complex stuff like closures, and this particular one is testing me. I do have an outline of my findings in a document, but need to flesh it out and proof it against the discussion. I could finish this as soon as tomorrow, depending on how things go, but I can't promise anything. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries. Your health always comes first. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I fear I gave the wrong impression. My health is in no jeopardy whatsoever, I just have intractable problems with fatigue and focus that frequently keep me from doing the things I want and intend. I appreciate your concern, though. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Memorial_Hall_(Harvard_University)#Rfc_on_use_of_"imposing"

(Initiated 96 days ago on 14 August 2024)

Coming up on two months since the last comment. Consensus seems pretty clear, but would like an uninvolved party to look it over. Seasider53 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 456#RfC: using photos of record labels from Discogs?

(Initiated 51 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments

(Initiated 42 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead

(Initiated 41 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:David Lammy#RfC: First sentence

(Initiated 34 days ago on 15 October 2024) Discussion has died down. The last vote was on 4 November. Khiikiat (talk) 10:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall#RfC: Should we add text prescribing just signatures, no discussion?

(Initiated 16 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:One_Direction#RfC: Band status and members in the infobox

(Initiated 31 days ago on 18 October 2024) Expired today, last comment was three weeks ago. The consensus on this RfC appears to lean one way among the participants, but because of the high-profile and contentious nature of the change under discussion, I think an uninvolved editor should close. Thesixthstaff (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	35	35
TfD	0	0	0	3	3
MfD	0	0	0	5	5
FfD	0	0	0	2	2
RfD	0	0	5	60	65
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 8#Confederation of the Rhine

(Initiated 19 days ago on 31 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 9#Category:Fictional characters from the Solar System

(Initiated 9 days ago on 9 November 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Feminist art movement#proposing merge of Feminist art into Feminist art movement

(Initiated 307 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Talk:List of pholidotans#Merge to Manidae

(Initiated 19 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: It's now been 7 days...I know this isn't a priority to you but can you at least take a look at it this week, even if it's not today? Thanks for your time, Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Category pages will be movable soon

Effective May 22nd, category pages will become movable. Although members of the category will still have to be fixed manually, the revision history of the description page can be preserved when renaming categories. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Is there more info on this? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There's bugzilla:5451, bugzilla:28569, and gerrit:111096. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be better if the new right move-categorypages was restricted to admins; the linked page says it will be available to all users. Currently, categories are moved only through WP:CFD, and the page which instructs the bots to do this (WP:Categories for discussion/Working) has been full-protected since 2007. Allowing any editor to move the category pages (without a corresponding ability to fix the category entries) risks causing havoc :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree - should be restricted to admins. DexDor (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that all editors can already cut-and-pasmove category pages. All this would do is let them bring the category page's history with it. It wouldn't let them perform mass recategorizations. Because of this, I don't see a need to restrict the right, but if there's consensus to, I will prepare a configuration change request. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, they can cut-and-paste, but not many do, because experienced editors know that cut-and-paste is deprecated. Removing that barrier will increase the number of c+p moves of categories. I do think it should be admin-only. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

So at the moment only inexperienced editors get the "right" (through taboo) to move categories? Extending to experiecned editors sounds good. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

(Sigh). Inexperienced editors do all sort of things they shouldn't do; that does not mean that they have a right to do them. It just means that we don't WP:BITE them too hard while they learn the ropes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a separate group for this; it wouldn't be suitable for inexperienced editors, or for all administrators, but could be useful for editors involved in categorisation but not interested in adminship, or who would fail RFA for reasons such as lack of article writing or AFD experience (similarly, "suppressredirect" could be useful for experienced editors involved in reviewing articles for creation or new page patrol). Peter James (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. We'd need broad consensus for that though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It's "assigned to user and sysop by default" - will that be the default here or will it not be assigned to any group here without consensus? Peter James (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

It will be assigned to user and sysop here unless we get consensus to change it. (The move right is still needed as well, so you'll need to be autoconfirmed to move categories even though the "user" group has the move-categorypages right.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

gerrit:111096 mentions a category-move-redirect-override option. Will it be implemented here? - Eureka Lott 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It's already set up at MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Would it make sense to add {{R from move}} there? - Eureka Lott 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so. We don't do that for category redirects now, and it's not a "real" redirect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No reason not to - maybe display or categorise them differently with a new template "Category redirect from move" or added parameters based on namespace detection. Peter James (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a move=1 parameter to Template:Category redirect. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

That's probably better, if it will only be used on pages containing that template. Peter James (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with BHG: this needs to either be an 'Admins Only' right, or something along the lines of the 'Template Editor' special right - and if it's the latter it needs to be the former until the "broad consensus for that" is achieved. As it is, this is going to allow the sockvandtrolls to willy-nilly move categories about; we shouldn't wait until we see Category:Presidents of the Royal Statistical Society renamed to Category:Crap to acknowledge that is is otherwise going to happen. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
  • How is this any different than what the (autoconfirmed) sockvandtrolls can do to articles, templates, user pages, and anything except categories and files today? Also, the damage would be no worse than if they copied and pasted the description to the "new" name and replaced the old description with a redirect, which they can do anyway. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
    • @Jackmcbarn different from what they can do today, because editors know that copy-paste moves are not accepted, so most are reluctant to do it. Adding a move button makes it appear legit.
      Different from articles in several ways: a) categories pages are rarely edited, so they are on very few watchlists; b) moving an article affects that article, but moving a category page can wreck the navigation system for many articles.
      Different from templates, because high-visibility templates are routinely protected, whereas categories are not.
      Please, Jack, there are probably only a dozen or two editors who routinely monitor large swathes of the category system. Bushranger and I are both amongst that number, and we are both alarmed about this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I've submitted bugzilla:65221 and gerrit:132947. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Jackmcbarn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Note that it's been decided that with the new discussion here, we don't have a clear enough consensus to make the change. See the bug for more details. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone wants to play with this to see exactly how it works, it's live now at http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/ (note that accounts aren't shared between here and there). Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure the new right should be admin only - instead it would probably make sense to be admins & trusted users. That is, admins should have it by default, and admins should then be able to turn it on for trusted users who ask for it, and take it away upon misuse or complaint. That scheme seems to work OK for other rights. If moving cats is a particularly sensitive area, then the bar for who gets it should be set fairly high. BMK (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Going to agree with BMK because this opens to more issues and some really difficult headaches if anyone wanted to be malicious. A minimal dose of caution until the ramifications, exploitation and countermeasures are better understood is not a bad thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Going to disagree here. Moving categories is essentially bypassing WP:CFD where renaming categories is discussed. Moving categories should only occur after a CFD discussion has been closed. The reason why this step is essential is, unlike articles, categories do not stand alone, they exist in a hierarchy, with parent categories and child categories. Changing a category name might seem like a good idea but if there is already a category system where the categories are named "X of Y", it doesn't make sense to change one category's name to "Y's X". In a CFD discussion, the context of the proposed renames, mergers and deletions is looked at as no categories exist in isolation (or if they do, they shouldn't be!).

What I'm unclear of is how "moving" is different from "renaming", both of which change the title of a category and retain the edit history. And with a rename, it is not necessary to go and change the category names on all of the category contents. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

When CfD renames a category, they move the description page (today by cut-and-paste), and then use bots to recategorize all members of the old category into the new one. The only difference is that the move (of the description page) will be normal. The bots will still have to do the recategorization to finish the rename. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Are the bots programmed to handle this configuration? –xeno^talk 14:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Right - but if someone renames a category and neglects to kick off the bots, then hundreds or maybe thousands of articles could have redlinks and/or soft-redirects (which require an extra click) at the bottom of the page.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Xeno: It looks like the bots will need to be updated. I've posted a link to here on their operators' talk pages. @Obiwankenobi: The redlinks are a legitimate concern, but the soft-redirect issue could happen anyway, so I'm not as worried about it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack, can you give an example of what would happen if I were to move Category:Living people to Category:Dying people? What would we see on all of the 600,000 biographies in this category immediately after it was moved? Would there be a redlink, or a bluelink towards a soft-redirected category? Also, what happens if you attempt to rename it to a category name that already exists? I love the idea of saving history of a category instead of copy/paste renames, but I'm just not sure it's a tool random editors should have - making it a permission one could apply for would make more sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: On the articles, nothing would change at all. It would be a bluelink towards a soft-redirected category (which looks exactly the same from articles). The soft-redirected category would still retain all of its members, so readers would just see a confusing message in place of the description, and everything else would be normal (and a vandal could cause that even without this functionality). If you tried to move a category over an already-existing one, it would fail just like trying to move an article over an already-existing one would. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jack. I think that's problematic - as BHG points out, there are categories that are applied to hundreds or thousands of articles, whereas the category itself may only be watched by a few editors. This provides too much opportunity for large-scale troublesome moves - or even incorrect/undiscussed moves of categories. I believe that bots regularly clean up soft-redirected categories and move articles automatically, correct - that means someone could do an incorrect category move and then a bot would actually move the articles, which editors may ignore since they usually trust bot edits more.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

In light of the way the bots (and category move system in general) are currently setup, I think it would be best if a staged approach were used to roll out this new functionality. –xeno^talk 15:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The rollout won't break anything. The bots can be updated at any time to use the new move method, and until they are, everything will keep working as it always has. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

There is one effect of leaving soft redirects that hasn't been mentioned yet - normal users won't be able to revert category moves. If we left a normal redirect then it could be reverted by any autoconfirmed user - providing no-one else edits the page in the meantime - but moves leaving behind a soft redirect will only be revertable by admins. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(Of course, this won't matter if/when Jackmcbarn's patch goes through, as then only admins will be able move categories anyway.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'll also agree with BHG that this should be restricted to admins. Once the tool is in place and understood, then there may be a need to review the CFD guidelines to see what if anything needs to be changed. It would also be nice to create a permission list so the bots can do the moves. This should at some point be expanded to additional users. But that would require an approval process. Not even sure where to start on that. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  It would probably be fine to include the permission with 'administrator', 'bot', 'bureaucrat'. at the outset. And then expand to other userrights as necessary. –xeno^talk 17:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about this, even if this tool is restricted to admins or permissions granted to a few experienced editors. Right now, we have two processes, a) speedy renames and b) CFD. If ANYONE objects to a speedy rename, the editor proposing the rename is directed to file a CFD proposal. Let's say, it's a category call "U.S. Interstate Highways in Virginia". If it goes to a CFD discussion, the creator of the category is notified, the relevant WikiProject is notified, there are notices sorted to other, interested WikiProjects so they can all participate in the discussion over whether the rename is a good idea. This might be a cumbersome process, but it allows ordinary editors who are experienced in editing in the category area to weigh in with their opinions. Some of these discussions get heated (like the one concerning Category:Pseudoscientists) and the result is "no consensus".
The idea that any admin could bypass this discussion process and move any category they choose, is very disruptive to the system that exists. As BHG states, there are a small number of editors who focus on categories and the chances that these moves would be seen by others is very small so there would be, in effect, no oversight. This isn't meant to be a judgment of administrators, just that the structure of categories on Wikipedia is quite different from other areas (like main space, talk pages, user pages, Wikipages, FAs, etc.). Editors have received blocks because of their lack of competency in creating or editing categories because bad edits to a category have a potentially greater impact than an edit to an article.
The only way I can see this tool being effectively used is after the outcome of a CFD, if the decision is to rename, a move can be done instead. Otherwise, editors can simply ask an admin or editor with the permission to make the move and skip over the discussion part. The admin may be uninvolved but it is very likely that the editor requesting the move is involved and there could be even more editors who would contest the move.
I really understand that this tool was created to make editors/admins lives easier, not more complicated, but I see an uptick in activity at Wikipedia:Move review unless this tool is thoughtfully and carefully rolled out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Alternate userright proposal I propose renaming "templateeditor" into "trusted maintainer" and merge this userright into that bundle. Could also merge reviewer and account creator into it as well, just throwing the options out there. A trusted maintainer would be a perfect userright for gnoming work.--v/r - TP 20:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think if it was this simple for "trusted maintainer" to move a category, they will just do so without checking to see how their move impacts related categories. I think when an editor has a right, they might be cautious using it at first, but soon are likely to trust their instinct or judgment instead of actually checking to see if the move makes sense from the category hierarchical structure that exists for that subject. It's crucial not to consider a category in isolation from other categories, they are part of a system. But I've had my say and will let others weigh in. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of bundling, personally, especially with the userrights that don't have much process attached for requesting them. We lose any ability to differentiate between them, as far as requirements go; someone who just wants to be able to review pending changes to articles isn't going to necessarily have the skills to be a template editor, but because we've (hypothetically) bundled them, we can't just give one without the other, and so we have to deny them for no real reason.

As far as the actual catmover right itself goes, I don't really see any reason to restrict it; while it's certainly true that maliciously moving a cat description page can affect many articles, it will only affect them by proxy (i.e. the cleanup is still limited to just that one cat description page; you don't need to go through and fix it for each of those thousands of articles), and it only affects them in an extremely minor way; most likely, no readers would even notice. On the whole, I don't think the potential for damage is particularly higher than pagemover, which might only affect one article, but will do it in a much more visible way (and there are articles that are just as unwatched as categories, of course). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there's also the question of norms. Pages can be moved by anyone in most cases, but it would be rather daft to move Ireland to Ireland (island) unless you have a death wish - a norm, and indeed a set of community agreed sanctions, has made individual editors moving such pages verboten. We could do the same with category moves - unless the category was created by yourself, or the move is to correct a typographical error, no matter what your role you should not move it, but rather seek consensus for the move at CFD or speedy CFD. A log of category moves could be reviewed to ensure that people weren't abusing this. Thus, in spite of what userrights we attach, we may also create a community norm that says, in general, categories should only rarely be moved without discussion - which would be a more restrictive rule than that which covers articles currently.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think that moving category pages will be useful for multiple reasons – keeping the category history visible, and being able to trace the new name more easily given the old one – but IMHO it should be restricted to admins. I can't think of any gain from making it available to others. (Writing as an editor who became an admin mainly to help with closing CFDs.) – Fayenatic London 21:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  So yet another user "right" that administrators want to keep to themselves? Soon it will only be admins who are allowed to edit anything. Eric Corbett 21:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

  @Eric Corbett: No, Eric, it's a new tools which is not initially being rolled out to non-admins. No editor is losing any ability to do anything they can do now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Not yet, no. But my fundamental objection is to the accretion of user rights to admins without any assessment of whether they have any idea of how to edit templates, for instance. I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about this self-evident truth here however, in the camp of the enemy. Eric Corbett 02:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  No, users currently do not have this right. There is already a process to move categories and that is in place for several reasons. So the comments here simply are saying we need to install this feature in a way that supports the existing guidelines. If and when that process is changed, then the rights could be extended. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  Kind of misses the point. While WMF is trying "make it as easy as possible to contribute knowledge" -- as evidenced by the fact by default the right goes to users -- the admin community is trying to decide a priori, without any evidence, that it should be restricted. Meanwhile, in the thread above I pointed out about 36 hours ago that our existing categorization of Pseudoscientists / Paranormal investigators -> James Randi is a WP:BLP, but admins here seem more interesting in haggling about this, and the Cfd and the blah blah blah whatever, than actually fixing the encyclopedia. (I've attempted to do so at Category:Paranormal investigators‎). NE Ent 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  @NE Ent: Same question for you as for Green Giant below. Why do you want to give editors a tool to perform a task which they are not supposed to perform anyway?
  How would this help anyone? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Incidentally, this is why non-admins need to be on WP:AN -- there's zero justification for admins deciding something like without getting input from the rest of the community. NE Ent 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support a wider group for this right. The best venue for this would have been the Village Pump, but seeing as the discussion is already underway there is no point moving it now. I can see two camps forming, one side would like to restrict this to a small number of trusted users, the other to keep it open to a wider group. Personally I think it is a significant new right and it will see many simmering disputes spill over, particularly real world issues like the Middle East, the former Yugoslavia, the current Russia-Ukraine problems etc. If we open this new right to a wide group of editors, it will cause chaos because people will engage in POVish edit wars just like they do with article names and content. However, it isn't beneficial to Wikipedia if the right is resticted to just admins, because then it will be no different to the existing mechanism at WP:CFD/WP:CFDS i.e. you propose a rename and if approved it gets done by an admin/bot. The above idea of merging it into template editors and renaming that group has some merit but it begs the question of "why limit it to just that group?". I think the most beneficial route will be to add it to the widest possible group of trusted users i.e. admins, autopatrolled, file mover, reviewer, rollback and template editor groups. That would help build more confidence in each others abilities compared to the snarl-match taking place here. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

While it could be a useful tool for users other than admins to have, I am opposed to adding the right to groups like Autopatrolled, file mover etc. as Green Giant suggested. Rollbackers (such as myself) often will have no clue about category maintenance, and it should neither be assigned to thousands of users who could misuse it (in good or bad faith) nor should category knowledge be a requirement to attain rollback. I would support a user group such as category mover, to be assigned like file mover to users experienced in category maintenance who can demonstrate their need for the tool by having demonstrated understanding and activity at WP:CFD. BethNaught (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

BethNaught, I would support a new user group just for this right but my point was that all of these groups are effectively trusted users until they give a reason not to be trusted. It makes no sense to reserve it just for admins when really categories are a content-building activity. The obvious solution to vandalism would be protection in the same way articles can be protected. Green Giant (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, and on further consideration I don't believe there would be any danger in assigning the right to already trusted user groups. I guess I'm just the sort of person who likes to keep unrelated things separate. Given that categories are content building, I would therefore be happy for the right to be assigned to autopatrolled users (and perhaps template editors), but the other groups you mentioned are more about maintenance, which makes them a bit distant for me. BethNaught (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Moving categories is not a WP:BOLD issue, and has never been in the 8 years I have edited Wikipedia. They should be moved only after a discussion at WP:CFD, or (for a few speedy criteria) after listing at WP:CFD/S. That's not because of any technical restrictions; it's because changes to categories affect many articles, so prior consensus is required before renaming or depopulating any existing category.

Giving this tool to admins will not allow them to go moving categories around without prior consensus. It will merely allow them to implement CFD decisions; but the vast majority of CFD decisions are implemented by bots, so in practice this is a tool which will be used 95% of the time by bots.

Please can you explain why exactly you want a wider group of editors to be given a tool to do something which they aren't supposed to do anyway, because of its ramifications? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl:, the essence of this debate is whether the right should be just for admins (which is unlikely to gain consensus) or should anyone else be allowed it. The sheer fact that the issue is being discussed here rather than at the village pump is perhaps a sign of the times. I disagree with just giving it to admins and template editors, because it has precious little to do with just templates and affects everything we do. You mentioned WP:BOLD as not involving moving categories but in fact it encourages caution for all non-article namespaces, not just categories. [[WP::BOLD#Category_namespace]] in particular says "if what you're doing might be considered controversial (especially if it concerns categories for living people), propose changes at Categories for discussion". That doesn't mean that every category change needs to go to CFD, just the controversial ones. Like you yourself say further down, what if someone creates a category with a spelling error? It has happened to me sometimes. Wouldn't it be easier to just be able to move the category in a matter of seconds, rather than listing it at Categories for discussion/Speedy, where requests sometimes take days depending on the admins workload. Certainly I agree that this right shouldn't be handed out like candy to just any auto-confirmed editor, but equally let's not restrict this solely to admins. Beth's idea of a separate user group is the best way to go. The two most trusted groups after admins would be filemovers (373) and template editors (75 excluding two bots) (although at least 23 are also file movers), so why not have a third similar group? Let it be granted by an admin at requests for permissions if an applicant meets reasonably stringent criteria. Green Giant (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Green Giant: I am not implacably opposed to the idea of a special group like the one you mentioned, tho I do question whether its utility for the very small number of legitimate uses outweighs the risk that it becomes a way of bypassing the consensus-forming process at CFD. I think it would be great to have a wider discussion about this.
But the immediate issue facing us is that the categ-move facility will be rolled out on 22 May, only 8 days. As set up, it will be available to all auto-confirmed users; as patched by Jack, it would be available to admins only. So we have a choice about what happens next: roll it out to a more limited set than you would like, and discuss extending it, or roll it out to a much wider set. The option of holding off pending consensus is not on the table.
Woukdn't it be much better to start with the more limited change, and then consider the wider change? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that initially it should be just admins because of the absurdly short notice (or lack of) by the developers. However, call me a pessimist but where would we raise the issue of extending the right to non-admins? Certainly not here and the village pump proposals board is just a talking shop where any decent idea winds up in the archives somewhere. Once the dust settles, it is highly unlikely any proposals to extend the right will be successful. As an aside, I note that apart from Jack, very little effort seems to have gone into raising the issue over at Meta, because this affects every project, not just en-wiki. Having had a quick look through several other village pumps/cafes, I don't think I've seen any discussions outside of en-wiki and commons. Additionally, is there any chance of someone archiving some of the older posts because this board is absurdly large right now (getting close to 500k). Green Giant (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems like my words of caution aren't having an impact on the discussion. So, my final comment is a straight-forward request:If you make this tool available, whether just to admins or to a wider group, please maintain a log of category moves so that there can be some record. Right now, we have CFD that acts as an archive one can refer to but if any admin can move a category, without providing any reason at all, there should at least be a log of these moves so that the community is aware of these changes. As BHG has stated, few editors have category pages on their Watchlist, there are tens of thousands of categories that exist and it is likely that category moves will go unnoticed if there isn't a log recording them. It should also record the name of the editor making the move so that any questions can be directed to them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

They will be logged. See [1]. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Category moves: this is looking bad

A reply above by @Jackmcbarn: says "it's been decided that with the new discussion here, we don't have a clear enough consensus to make the change". The bug link is bugzilla:65221.

So it seems that what is now happening is that the new feature will be rolled out on 22 May, with no restrictions on its use. For all the reasons set out above, that is very bad news, because this new tool could be used to create serious damage to the category system, which could be enormously time-consuming to repair. A moved article affects one article; but a moved category can affect hundreds of articles. If an editor moves Category:French people to Category:Cheese-eating surrender monkeys, a soft redirect will be left behind, and the bots will then recategorise all the articles. This is wide open to exploitation, and it the vulnerability it causes should be fully assessed before such wide deployment.

I think it's a mistake to read the discussion above as no consensus for restricting this to admins only ... but there is also no consensus to roll this out without a restriction in place.

There are only 9 days until the planned rollout, which is too soon for an RFC to conclude. So it seems that the technical people are just going to impose this new tool as a fait accompli, without giving the community time to assess whether it wants it, and whether access to it should be restricted. Is that correct?

I it is correct, then the techies are about to impose a huge vulnerability, despite the warnings :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

What's to stop a vandal today from creating Category:Cheese-eating surrender monkeys with some random text, and replacing the contents of Category:French people with {{Category redirect|Category:Cheese-eating surrender monkeys}}? That would also cause the bots to miscategorize everything. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, note that Parent5446 questioned including the option to restrict this functionality at all ("Just wondering: why would you need a separate permission to move category pages? I mean it's not an expensive or destructive operation or anything like that.") Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree fully with BHG, this potentially powerful tool should be restricted to admins only. GiantSnowman 18:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Jack: the potential destructive power of this tool doesn't actually lie in any function of the tool itself; it lies in the naivety of the bots that handle category redirects. restricting the use of the tool would be treating the symptom, not the cause, and as a general principle, we shouldn't be restricting permissions any more than is necessary. Perhaps we should think about a better way for the bots to work, instead. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the solution(s), they should be discussed before the tool is deployed. What we face now is its imposition before the community has fully assessed its impact, despite a significant number of experienced editors expressing concerns. That's appalling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this definitely required more, detailed discussion before being thrust upon us. GiantSnowman 18:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Think of this, please: The editors who put their hours into WP:CFD are saying that this is a bad idea to implement without restrictions and this whole process is being rushed. This tool has not been created because those involved in category renaming asked for it. Editors who know the ramifications of sloppy or whimsical category moves, made without consensus, are saying, "This will not work out well." Why is their experience being discounted? Can you imagine telling the folks who work on the main page that any admin could make an article a featured article? Or, say, let's just eliminate WP:AFD discussions and let's just let admins delete whatever articles they feel don't "fit" within Wikipedia? Of course, there would be objections from the editors who know these areas well and work on maintaining some standards and fairness about the process. This tool would bypass all discussion by regular editors on whether these moves are a wise idea. The impact of this on WikiProjects alone could involve a massive clean-up.

I don't mean to sound alarmist, it's just that this tool throws out a long-standing consensus process at Wikipedia in one swift move. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: notes the bugzilla post ("Just wondering: why would you need a separate permission to move category pages? I mean it's not an expensive or destructive operation or anything like that.") That has been answered repeatedly in this thread, but it seems that some editors prefer to keep this as a technical discussion on bugzilla, rather than joining in the community discussion here.

This discussion-forking is no way to reach consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't discussion-forking. That was an old post (posted February 3rd), while I was writing the code for the functionality. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, Jack. But we still need this functionality to held back until there is a consensus on how to deploy it. Please can you or someone else with access to bugzilla make that request? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The sysadmins definitely won't go for that. The best thing that there's chance of consensus of in time is to make it admin-only, but even that doesn't look likely. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Jack, I'm not sure what you mean there. Do you mean no chance that the sysadmins will agree to holding it back? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

How can this be true? How can the introduction of a new tool be forced on the Wikipedia community without considering the impact it will have or listening to the community's concerns? This is really crazy, Jackmcbarn! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If there were consensus here to make it admin-only, they'd be fine with that. Since we're divided, they're not going to change anything yet. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• No need to rush Jack, I think you make a fair point - it is possible that someone could replicate the move functionality through a copy/paste + creation of a redirect, and then the bots will stupidly comply and categorize everyone as a cheese-eating surrender monkey. However, there is a certain element of security-through-obscurity here - most rookie spammers may not know about the full mechanics of a successful category move, whereas now it will become accessible in one click. As a developer, I'm sure you know the difference between one click and three in an interface can be massive. Nothing prevents people from doing copy/paste moves in article space, but we still restrict page moves for some users and even have the ability to lock page moves, with good reason - as such moves can be disruptive. More importantly, you have to understand the context of categories - which those of us who work in this space are well familiar with - if category moves were permitted by anyone, or even by people who had demonstrated X or Y, I'm still not convinced they should be using such powers - indeed if someone did this today, and tried to rename a category from Category:Bill Clinton to Category:William Jefferson Clinton using the redirect trick, it would be rejected and reverted and that person would be told to go to CFD. We have only one case right now where a regular editor can determine the name of a category, and that is at creation time - once that category is created, any changes need to be discussed. It's a bit burdensome, but it also avoids a lot of trouble - we already have a great difficulty in managing the flood of new categories - if we also had to be worried that users were changing existing category names willy nilly in the same way they move articles around - especially given that so few people watch categories - that could cause potential chaos and massive inconsistency that may only be discovered years after the fact. At CFD we regularly come across categories that are so brain dead it is painful, and sometimes these have been laying around for years before anyone noticed them. I think if this is rolled out, even just to admins, the admins should NOT use this tool unless there is an obvious typo, or unless there is consensus at a discussion somewhere. As a different example, Brownhairedgirl as admin has the right to delete categories right now, she could go and ice Category:Living people if she felt up to it, but she *won't*, she won't even delete obviously bad categories (unless they are blatant spam or violating of BLP), instead she will bring them to discussion and let the community decide. It's just the way CFD works, and by putting this tool in the hands of everyone, you are bypassing the whole CFD process. There's a certain stability that comes with categories and a need for consistency; knowing that a given tree won't be gutted or destroyed or renamed without some oversight and more than one pair of eyes is key. Categorization is tricky and category names are quite different beasts than article names, so we shouldn't treat them the same. I'm saying this as a user, not an admin, and while I think it's reasonable to consider adding permissions for certain non-admins to do such moves, there need to be strong norms around when any such moves can be performed, and I can think of very few cases where even an admin should move a category without discussion (unlike article titles, which can be moved much more freely). If it needs to roll out right away, fine, but restrict it to admins, and let the community discuss greater permissions and attendant norms in the meantime.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with all that Obi has written. The only situation in which I as an admin move a category without discussion is when it is one that I have newly created, per WP:C2E. As an admin, I would use this new tool in only three situations: 1) to implement a speedy move of a categ I had newly created; 2) to implement a speedy move after unopposed listing at WP:CFD/S, 3) to implement the result of a full WP:CFD discussion. In practice, I would very rarely do either of the 2 or 3, because in nearly all cases it is much easier an to let the bot do the work; the bot also makes fewer mistakes and logs its actions consistently.
    So if it is used properly, this new tool will overwhelmingly be used by the bots. That raises the option of making it a bot-only right. I would be quite happy with that, it might allay some concerns about accretion of admin powers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that having a discussion proposing limiting something to admins should be on WP:VPP not in the admin secret hidey-hole club treehouse basement. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

these actions are already limited to admins by longstanding consensus. Editors, nor admins, are not allowed to rename a category except in a very small set of circumstances, and if someone did rename through copy/paste they would be reverted. This tool simply makes it easier. I want to address a point Liz made above, which is that no-one asked for this feature - on that I disagree, the ability to move categories and thus keep their history has long been requested and I'm very glad we'll have it as we'll be able to see the whole history of a category including renames which previously we couldn't, so thanks to the devs for making this happen - however we have existing norms that any such moves happen at CFD or CFD/S, and giving users permissions to do this while skipping those venues throws out longstanding consensus. Since there seems to be a push to roll this out we must remember en wiki is not the only one affected, and there may be other patches that need to roll at the same time so I see no reason to block the rollout, just a suggestion that permissions be limited - for now- and then we can in parallel have a deeper discussion about who else should have these permissions and when, if ever, users should be allowed to use them.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Obiwankenobi: What you're suggesting is basically what they said no to. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Who exactly is "they"?

Why is the default assumption that a powerful new tool should be handed to everyone, without a consensus to do so? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"They" are probably the sysadmins, and the default assumption was that category moving is no more powerful than page moving, so it should be distributed to the same users that pagemove is. And to be fair, they're not wrong from their perspective; it's only the bots that make it powerful here, not the tool itself. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Correct on both accounts, Writ Keeper. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Writ Keeper: @Jackmcbarn: I disagree strongly with that default assumption, because a category page has a very different function to other pages. The consequences of moving a category page are very different.

But I am even more concerned about the apparent determination to ignore the huge weight of evidence in this discussion that those who do the greatest amount of work with categories foresee huge problems arising from wide deployment of this tool. When a theoretical perspective about a tool discounts the practical effects of its deployment, we are in trouble. Did none of the developers even stop to ask why category pages had been unmoveable until now?

The bots do valuable job of fixing the minor errors in categorisation which would otherwise leave category entries pointing to redirects. This new tool turns them into a vulnerability, which will give huge power to vandals and to editors who are reckless. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: "a category page has a very different function to other pages. The consequences of moving a category page are very different." The only reason that's the case is because of our bots. From the developers' perspective, our bots aren't a reason to change the software. Did none of the developers even stop to ask why category pages had been unmoveable until now? The reason category pages were immovable for a long time is because they wanted to avoid confusing users by letting them think they were moving the category when they were in fact only moving its description page. This new tool turns them into a vulnerability, which will give huge power to vandals and to editors who are reckless. As I pointed out before, vandals can abuse the bots by cut-and-paste moving a category, and the bots will do just as much damage that way. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: It's not just because of the bots. The bots add an extra layer of vulnerability, but don't let them obscure the underlying difference, which is why we have the bots.
If I move an article or a template or a Wikipedia page, a link to the old title takes me via a redirect to the page as it was; the only change is to the title, but in every other respect the page looks the same. That is not the case with a category, where we don't use hard redirects. If I have the tools and the inclination to move a category page, then when I visit the old title I do not see what I would have seen before the move. I see the same list of pages, but not the parent categories, the explanatory text, the table of contents etc. If I follow the soft redirect, I see the Toc, parent categs etc ... but not the list of pages. The bots exist to bridge that gap.
Once again, the consequences of this are well understood by the editors who regularly participate at CFD, and all of those CFD regulars who have posted here (including non-admins) agree that this tool should be restricted. It is frustrating to find that all expertise is being ignored :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a great new possibility. I am not an admin, and one time I was very active on Cfd and many times wanted to be able to move categories.

Nevertheless, I am strongly convinced it is a really bad idea to implement this feature and not restrict it to a small group of users. I foresee a big mess and serious disruption from all kinds of impetuous and/or tendentious editors, as well as vandals. I think that either this should not be implemented at this time, or restricted to admins until such time as a broader discussion establishes which other users may be allowed access to this feature.

I strongly agree with BrownHairedGirl and disagree with Jackmcbarn: developers have no right to implement a feature while there is no consensus who should have access to it, unless it is restricted to the largest cross-section everybody agrees upon, which in this case is admins. Debresser (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Debresser: Actually, they do. Developers aren't bound by community consensus. If we establish a consensus to restrict the tool, they'll restrict it, but they don't have to do anything now. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the scene in Raiders of the Lost ark - "our top men are on it?" "Who?" "Top... Men." The arrival of a new permission implicitly indicates to the user that this is an acceptable action to take - but we have no policy around user-led category moves. It's almost as if 'delete' were added to all editors toolboxes without the attendant training and infrastructure for its use. As has already been noted, on en.wp, no regular user has ever had the right to move a category, and now it will show up their menu as a new toy to play with. This is a bad idea, and I disagree that the sysadmin's position is reasonable since rollout of an IT system change must take account of the local technological (eg bots) and social (eg norms) context. That wasn't done here. I'm sure they are acting in good faith but I would also be surprised if this was the only wiki where regular users weren't permitted to muck about renaming categories, etc. we don't need to establish a new consensus here that only admins can move categories, this is LONG standing precedent and we have policy documentation and years of evidence to prove it, so if this must roll plz restrict to admins as that aligns with the current consensus of who can actually move categories today. The fact that a few editors here are grumbling does nothing to upend that long standing consensus.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of actions that are technically permitted but aren't allowed by our rules, like sticking editors on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions unilaterally. Any misuse of this tool is a social problem, not a technological one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: Wikipedia has technical barriers to many other social problems, such as a bar on IPs creating pages, and on non-admins deleting pages, and on editors using rollback without first seeking permission.

There is an existing technical barrier to category moves. You are entitled to the view that the barrier shouldn't exist, but a change requires a community consensus rather than a unilateral imposition by the devs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No consensus

Last I recall, Devs don't implement something unless there is consensus to do so. Doubt that? Go have a look at how long it took for Rollback to be implemented for anyone besides admins. (Including several discussions.)

So the standard SOP afaik, is that they add a new tool to admins (user-right group: sysop), and IF THERE IS CONSENSUS, then that tool may be allowed to a broader user-group (whether to an existing group like autoconfirmed, or a new one like how rollbacker or template editor were created after a consensual discussion).

So if we follow the past model, then this ability should be given to admins if the Devs so deem, and a consensual discussion would be required before granting it to a larger userbase than that.

If someone else has a different view of wikipedia history or policy, I'm all ears, but as far as I know, that's how things have been done for some time.

And note, this is a functionality that I have been wanting to see for some time. I have never liked that we do cut-n-paste moves when implementing a category move. (I seem to recall that once-upon-a-time we could move category pages IF we removed all the category members first. But that was deprecated in some update in the long past.)

And yes, category moves can be done boldly, but due to the large number of page changes to the category members which is sometimes needed, WP:CFD is the typical venue for discussing a category move.

What I think is not being understood by those who are not regularly involved with categories is that the name of the category is much more important than the name of an article (for example). If you read over WP:CAT, you may note that the name is often the only way to determine inclusion criteria for article membership in a category. And as well, as the main purpose for categories is navigation, category names need to be clear.

And categories do not allow for referencing, so they rely on the references of the member articles. So category names NEED to be neutral, unbiased.

And now couple this with the fact that categories tend to be the most unwatched pages, and you have a recipe for disaster here waiting to happen.

And so if you look at the discussion above, you may notice that those who are active in CFD are the ones who are most concerned about this. As they are obviously the ones who not only presumably know and understand category policy, but also are the ones who regularly deal with implementation, and further, who regularly have to deal with cleaning up the messes of well-meaning (and sometimes not-so-well-meaning) category editors.

I'm still waiting for a way to block hotcat and twinkle from malfeasant editors for these and other reasons. There are several editors whose prolific category creation continually create a lot of work and headaches for those at CFD. And if this is implemented, this will be a huge mess.

This simply should be a separate user-right, just like template editor. And the community needs to come to consensus on who should have this right and how it should be granted.

This is the way we've been doing these things, there is no reason to not do this in this case as well. - jc37 20:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give you a different view of Wikipedia history and policy:

Anyone can edit. The default state is that anyone can do anything, unless we specifically find that it's necessary to restrict that. For those who weren't around and haven't heard the stories, it was originally the case that anyone could delete pages. It used to be that non-autoconfirmed users could move pages. We've restricted a few processes in response to real problems, but we have generally avoided doing so merely for speculative problems.

We don't preëmptively protect anything—much less entire namespaces!—based on some editor's speculation that there might be vandalism (vandalism, that to judge from the above comments, will simultaneously affect huge numbers of articles and also be completely invisible because nobody's watching the cat pages). The system of protecting after a concrete problem has been demonstrated seems to be working pretty well for today's featured article, so I don't really see why Category:France really needs to be handled any differently, and I certainly don't see why we should protect thousands and thousands of them just because there might be a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: This is not about creating a new protection; it is about the devs imposing the removal of a protection which already exists.
The risk of not just of vandalism, but of good faith actions where editors don't understand the consequences, in a namespace where pages are rarely watched. With so few watchers, who is going to monitor the hundreds of thousands of category pages for any problems which might occur?
Unilateral bold moving of categories is something which editors should not be doing anyway. We have a well-established consensus-forming process at WP:CFD, and a speedy one for uncontroversial actions at WP:CFD/S. Why create a tool to bypass these processes? And why on earth is being implemented with out a consensus to do so? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is about creating new protection. Previously, deficient technical design prevented people from doing what they should have been able to do from the beginning. The technical problem is being fixed. Now we should be going back to the normal default for this community: anyone can edit.

As for "without a consensus", there are 800+ WMF wikis, and many, many thousands of MediaWiki installations all over the world. Fixing this bug affects thousands of communities. The views of some people at just one of them should not prevent everyone else in the world from having the bug fixed. (Personally, I'm quite looking forward to this for use at a private wiki; it will enable me to clean up a minor mess left by someone else without having to agree to an admin bit there.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the other 800+ Wikis; it is about en.wikipedia, which isn any case is by far the largest wikimedia project.

Whether you regard the existing setup as a bug or a feature, it is one which has defined how categories are maintained. There are a significant number of editors who do have posted here to say that the "fix" poses significant problems for em.wp procedures, which is that in the case of category moving, the normal default is not for editors to act unilaterally. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd chime in here as a non-administrator. Currently the consensus-established policy is that regular editors should not move categories (via copy-paste or any other method). I don't see the point in giving every editor access to a tool that policy forbids them to use. The burden of establishing consensus is on those changing the status quo, and without consensus the status quo should be maintained. Therefore, the rights to use this tool should either be limited to administrators and bots (who are implicitly trusted enough not to use them to circumvent policy) or not given to any user groups until consensus is established to do so. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the current "policy" is that copy-paste "moves", no matter what the page, violate the CC-BY-SA license, and that, as a result of cat pages being developed separately, and therefore having strange limitations, no other method of moving is possible for non-admins. There is no "consensus-established policy" (I notice that you have provided no link to this alleged policy) that says that it's a bad idea for non-admins to be able to move category pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing, your first sentence is very wrong. WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves (how-to guide) briefly describes why splitting the page history should be avoided and links to WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline). WP:CWW is satisfied as long as attribution is given. Consider these recent creations by User:Cydebot to implement moves. Each edit summary contains a list of authors' usernames, as described by WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution and WP:Merge and delete#Record authorship and delete history (essay). Any auto-confirmed user could have created the pages, and any user could have written the required edit summaries. Deletion is more likely to cause problems, per WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material. Category:Female astronauts was deleted, but the deletion seems unnecessary, as it was recreated containing {{Category redirect}}. Category:Women astronauts's creation has a problem in its edit summary: the trailing ellipsis indicates truncation. There are three possible users, and none is simply "Lysos". At least one user is not attributed properly. Any user with a copy of the history – contents not required – could repair it by using the tips at WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Repairing insufficient attribution. Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Another non-admin (and former CFD regular) in favour of great caution here. I'd be very happy for the right to be admin-only, & might be pursuaded for a very small group of others to be given it. But as I understand it, this will make things easier, and there is no vast backlog for CFD-agreed moves anyway, so I'd wait to see if there is a problem before trying to solve it. Agree with User:BrownHairedGirl all the way. User:WhatamIdoing is completely missing several points: nobody watches the category pages mainly because they are very rarely edited. But many people use the categories all the time. Anybody who has spent any time at CFD will have seen many manic/enthusiastic nuisance category creators and won't doubt for a second that if they could move categories they certainly would. The whole point about categories is that they are connected up to other categories in structures that have often been the subject of protracted and fierce discussion, which can often only be traced through "what links here" - there isn't even a record of CFD debates on the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

  I favor great caution, too. I also favor not assuming that our editors can't handle this, especially once a few "hot button" categories get move-protected.
  I've got a bunch of cat pages on my watchlist, but you're missing the practical point: if the cat gets moved and every single article in that cat gets an edit to place it in the new category name, then one move could turn up on watchlists for dozens or even hundreds of pages. That means that cat moves are likely to be far more noticeable than regular page moves, even if absolutely zero people are watching the cat page itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I am in general agreement with those who have written above in favour of caution: User:BrownHairedGirl, Johnbod, and others. Yes, I'm an admin, and yes, I close a lot of discussions at WP:CFD. Users could try to argue that I'm just trying to protect the "sphere" where I do a lot of admin work, but really that's not my concern at all. (Frankly, I would love for the load at CFD to be lightened, but I'm afraid this would NOT accomplish it. Quite the opposite, I'm guessing!) My concerns have been well set out by the others above. I do think it is telling that those who tend to be more involved in category editing and organizations are the ones pushing for caution, whether or not those editors are admins. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Just a note that there is a vote going on about this same issue at the Commons ...some of the same concerns being voiced. I didn't realize that this feature change would affect all of Wikimedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, as I and other people said last week, this change affects 800+ wikis run by the Wikimedia Foundation plus many thousands of non-WMF wikis, both public and private. This bug fix is really not about the English Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Only admins to move categories? Really?

With the massive backlogs that exist at other admin-esque pages, isn't this over-kill? If users can move pages, then why not categories too? I doubt many people will even be aware they can move categories straight away. Leave it as it's planned to be, and if it all goes tits-up, round my house with your pitchforks and effigies. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we can write an admin-bot to move-protect all categories (or, perhaps, all categories over 1-3 days old). Or, alternatively, disable all the category-rename-handling bots until they are also programmed to revert improper moves, rather than follow them. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Lugnuts, giving all editors, including overenthusiastic newbies with idiosyncratic ideas about categorization (example), this facility is likely to increase the workload on those who repair disruption to categorization and hence make backlogs worse. I'd support move-protecting all (reader-side) categories more than a few days old. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Lugnuts is correct though that this doesn't necessarily have to be restricted to just admins. There should probably be a CategoryMover user right added as well. Though I assume that this has already been suggested somewhere in this long discussion. Resolute 16:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how attractive a vandalism target category moves would be, but it should be simple enough to disable them for non-admins by adding a <moveonly> entry for the Category: prefix to the title blacklist. That's a bit of a hack, of course, and would only work if Category: pages can only be moved to other titles in the Category: namespace (can they?), but it might be worth considering as a stop-gap while a broader consensus is figured out for who should ultimately be able to perform these moves. 28bytes (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Just noting that that would also allow template editors and account creators to move pages as well as they both have the tboverride userright. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good point. 28bytes (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily a bad thing or reason not to add it to the blacklist, just a note that there will be an unintended consequence. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. 28bytes (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Going live

This is going live in a little over 24 hours. It's now clear that consensus has not been established here to restrict this functionality. Also, note that this has already gone live on Commons, and there haven't been any disasters there. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No, what is patently clear is that Wikipedia is far more popular than Commons, and that there will be a disaster here. This entire thing has been cocked-up from the very beginning. GiantSnowman 16:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No. What is clear is that there is no consensus for the devs to change how individual wikis run things! This is simply another example where the foundation and the devs let us know how little they respect the editors on the wikis. Consensus is fine as long as it agrees with the foundation. Anything else can simply be ignored! This is simply not an acceptable attitude. Exactly who on this wiki gave you the omnipotent power to tell us to change our established consensus? Maybe you need to run a class on how to respect consensus? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Too narrow of a community base here

I propose an official RfC be started on this topic in the village pump as I'm sure there are many non-admin users (who refuse to come to the administrators' noticeboard as they may feel this is a toxic sewer in which nothing overly productive is accomplished). This discussion needs to be opened to the entire community. Until such a time as it is offered to the rest of the community (not that they couldn't come here, they shouldn't have to), I strongly oppose this proposal. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You don't propose that an RfC be started. If you want to start an RfC, just start it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13 has made a point, although a little belatedly. This thread didn't start out as a proposal, it just gradually developed into one. Also, being an admin doesn't necessarily correspond with competence in working with categories; whenever I make an effort to categorize pages, I either don't find anything on the list that I want, or, if I do, someone comes along shortly and changes it, so I won't be moving any categories. However, what we have here is a new action that up until now no one could do. It makes sense to start using it among a smaller group at first. If the rollout is coming shortly, I would hate to see it held up, or released without any restriction at all because of lack of consensus. Why not limit the moves to admins for now, and then after a month or two start an RfC, as T13 suggests, about how and to what extent permissions can be extended? By then people will have worked with the process, and there should be some opinions from the folks at WP:WikiProject Categories about whether and how much this access would help them in their work, and those involved may have come up with some ideas of how to implement it. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Because the restriction is a software setting, and the people capable of changing it won't do so unless we get consensus beforehand. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I assumed as much. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Which is totally backwards. We have guideline and process in place with community support. Now the developers want to change that without needing approval. That is wrong in so many ways. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And this is EXACTLY why this was a horrible idea...

...because we get crap like this as a result. This breaks the moving bot, and it's the wrong kind of redirect! Category redirects do not work this way. This needs to be stopped, now, on an emergency basis before this spreads and completely breaks the category system. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the wrong redirect type was because of a latent coding bug. Since Callanecc uses a language other than en here (I presume en-GB), it checked the redirect override text in the wrong language. I've prepared a fix for this at gerrit:135178. In the meantime, this can be fixed by creating MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override/en-GB with the same contents as MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you fix it by stopping the ability to move categories now. GiantSnowman 07:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've created MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override/en-gb and MediaWiki:category-move-redirect-override/en-ca (note that "gb" and "ca" are lower case, not upper case). That will fix the problem for editors who have their language set to some form of English. Editors using more exotic languages probably won't cause too much of a problem before Jackmcbarn's patch is deployed. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

All categories that have been moved so far

Extended content

+----------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | log_timestamp | log_user_text | log_namespace | log_title | log_params | log_comment | +----------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | 20140523035006 | Od Mishehu | 14 | Trịnh_Lords | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Trịnh lords";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | To match capitalisation of main article [[Trịnh lords]] | | 20140523055212 | Markhurd | 14 | L’Oréal-UNESCO_Awards_for_Women_in_Science_laureates | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:62:"Category:L'Oréal-UNESCO Awards for Women in Science laureates";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Non-smart quote, same as articles | | 20140523193330 | ThaddeusB | 14 | Numerologist | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:22:"Category:Numerologists";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"1";} | plural | | 20140523195731 | Lugnuts | 14 | Slough_Council_elections | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:41:"Category:Slough Borough Council elections";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140524014351 | Callanecc | 14 | User:Callanecc/test | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:33:"Category:User:Callanecc/testmoved";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | | | 20140524020612 | Callanecc | 14 | Pseudoscientists | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:35:"Category:Advocates of pseudoscience";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | History merge | | 20140524020614 | Ktr101 | 14 | Former_Essential_Air_Service | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:46:"Category:Former Essential Air Service airports";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | It should be under this name, since it makes no sense under the old one. | | 20140524021620 | Callanecc | 14 | Nguyễn_Lords | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:23:"Category:Nguyễn lords";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | [[WP:C2C]], [[Special:Permalink/605527865#Current_nominations|requested]] at [[WP:CFD]] | | 20140524021628 | Callanecc | 14 | Mandarins_of_the_Nguyễn_Lords | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:40:"Category:Mandarins of the Nguyễn lords";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | [[WP:C2C]], [[Special:Permalink/605527865#Current_nominations|requested]] at [[WP:CFD]] | | 20140524082057 | Mr. Stradivarius | 14 | Test_category | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:24:"Category:Test category 2";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | test the new category move function - will delete in a second | | 20140524125353 | Oncenawhile | 14 | Demographic_history_by_country | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:49:"Category:Demographic history by country or region";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Expanding to include region articles, given this category currently covers both | | 20140524143445 | Woz2 | 14 | Software_companies_based_in_Estonia | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:38:"Category:Software companies of Estonia";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | Consistancy | | 20140524223857 | BrownHairedGirl | 14 | Demographic_history_by_country_or_region | a:2:{s:9:"4::target";s:39:"Category:Demographic history by country";s:10:"5::noredir";s:1:"0";} | revert bold move. Please take it to [[WP:CFD]] | +----------------+------------------+---------------+---------------------------------------------------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

For reference (sorry about the horrible formatting). Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that I've submitted gerrit:135283 and gerrit:135284, which will allow both Special:Log and the API to be used to filter log entries by namespace, so in the future, queries won't have to be ran manually to see this kind of information. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

So so far the error rate is about 10% based on reversals without an extensive review. Not a good beginning. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User: Alexzr88

See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) § Removing source

--Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

User: Alesxzr88, who cites irrelevant sources in articles of history (books of non-historian writers), referred to me as "fanatic" You can see here. Could someone please make him stop treating me like that?--Владимир Нимчевић (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Complaints about incidents like this are normally posted to WP:ANI, not here. However, since you're here, let me add that there is no rule against citing sources written by non-historians. We require reliable sources. We do not require sources written by only members of one academic field. WhatamIdoing (talk)

I should add that "fanatic" isn't even on the list of words to watch, and it can even sometimes be a good thing, if in support of policy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Linking to discussions in signatures

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

---

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

---

• Before I start crashing down hard on people who do this, what do other admins think about editors who link to discussions in their signatures? The ones I'm worried about are predominantly featured content nominations, but other types of nominations may end up getting this treatment.

Recently, at FLC, I've seen a couple signatures which are very worrying, including "(name) Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC (date)" and "Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker?". The first signature has lead to the nomination being linked from around 100 pages. The second links to the Joker article, and thus is harder to count, but is probably worth fifty links.

In my opinion, such signatures violate Wikipedia:CANVASSING#Appropriate_notification, in which wide-spread notifications are classed as "Excessive cross-posting ("spamming")". To avoid the influence of spamming, I believe that any such nominations should be immediately failed as tainted by not following process; blocks should probably not be necessary. Any other opinions?

Please note that any signatures I mention here are just for concrete examples, and not to single said editors out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think I'd definitely put a note on the user's talkpage that doing this probably constitutes canvassing, and leave it at that. If you have reason to believe that the discussion has been tainted by the pseudo-crossposting, beyond just the fact of the sig, then I don't think anyone would object to closing the discussion, but if everything looks kosher despite the sig, I'd let it slide. But definitely, this type of sig can have the effect of canvassing and should be eliminated. VanIsaac_WS^cont 10:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
  • 100 crosslinks though... I doubt we'd say "just stop doing it" if that was 100 crosslinks in their own sections. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Crisco - it does violate Canvassing and should be disallowed. Kosh Vorlon    10:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • No, you probably wouldn't. But, then again, crosslinks with their own separate section would probably be more verbose, and also would assumedly be targeted as well. 100 crossposts to all the random places that a particular editor happens to comment seems like it would have more of a cross-section-of-editors quality to it than 100 crossposts at places an editor goes out of their way to choose to inform about a discussion. VanIsaac_WS^cont 10:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:SIG#DL

• "It is better to put information on your user page rather than in your signature. Brief additional internal links are generally tolerated when used to facilitate communication or to provide general information, but undesirable if seen as canvassing for some purpose. Do not place any disruptive internal links (especially when combined with custom formatting, for example CLICK HERE!!!) in your signature."

I don't know if links to a FLC discussion are considered are considered "disruptive" but they could be seen as canvassing according to the guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the part about excessive cross-posting, are there any problems with these links? They definitely look neutral, and unless they were added in unbalanced places (the "vote-stacking" bit of WP:CANVASS), the only way these will change anything is by bringing additional users to the discussions. There's no reason to consider the discussion to be tainted; it should proceed as normal. The only reasons we don't permit this kind of thing is that it dilutes useful notifications and is generally an obstruction. Nyttend (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If the person is basically a SPA and has the link to the one top topic that they always post to, it's not a disruptive form of canvassing. If the user, however, is a long-term user that posts all over the place, however, then it can be considered a violation of WP:CANVASS and should be altered. (And the three users whose signatures Crisco is referring to, they are long-term editors and should get that link removed because it's a disallowed form of canvassing.) Epicgenius (talk) 20:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't normally come down like a stack of bricks, but one of the signatures that Crisco used as an example (when I came across it in the wild) infuriated me to the point of going to the page that was being sollicited for and asking for a quick fail on the grounds that the process was being stacked with editors for a specific viewpoint. Hasteur (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this is nothing but canvassing. Ask them to remove, and if they don't, then block. GiantSnowman 20:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with what? Which of the signatures do you feel forced anyone to go anywhere and comment in any specific way whatsoever? They are neutral notices that encourage participation in what is an otherwise long and arduous process that gets involvement either never, or only through EXPLICIT canvassing asking for input at specific sections. These signatures raise awareness, they neither force involvement or promote any specific agenda and it is impossible to control the outcome of anyone visiting those review pages, everyone attending can as easily go against as for. They're harmless and in no way fall foul of canvassing. Canvassing outright states that you cannot post in places where you know you are influencing the outcome you want, these links open up the process to the entirety of Wikipedia, to deride as much as praise. It states that notifications must be polite, neutral, clear in presentation, and brief. These signatures again pass. The audience is non partisan, the transparency is completely open, and there is no mass posting, there are no comments being made for the sake of pasting a link and if you can go find one where a response like "ok" was added to a page, purely to stamp a link on it, I will hold my hands up and take the link out right now. The first sentence of the article states "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." The second sentence states "However, canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." You don't even have to read two lines into the article to know the signatures are appropriate.

SAYING something violates WP:CANVASSING does not mean that is the truth, yes? Because it appears most of you have never read the article given that the links do not fail the CANVAS guidelines in anyway whatsoever, and claiming that they do AND requesting that the users, myself included, be blocked for not violating anything, borders on bullying at best since the intent is to force what appears to be your personal views ("I went and asked for a process designed to evaluate and elevate someones hard work to automatically fail because I was infuriated by a link" - Hasteur paraphrased) and cite an unrelated guideline as back up. Now. Since it is clear that CANVAS does not apply, I thank Vanisaac and Nyttend for their neutral and appropriate input, and believe this discussion can come to an immediate close. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

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

You can't close the discussion when I've just pointed out how the signatures do not violate WP:CANVAS. I've just explicitly itemised how it doesn't violate WP:CANVAS. You didn't even respond to the comments, just closed the discussion while blatantly ignoring the comments made. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

What you're doing is clearly disruptive. Signatures are just that; a tag at the end of the post to identify who said it. Anything beyond that, esp soliciting votes/comments/whatnot, should be squashed as a nuisance. Tarc (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

...unless you link to WP:WER. That's OK. Hm. --72.251.71.184 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: User:Darkwarriorblake has been indeff'd by User:DangerousPanda. --72.251.71.184 (talk) 23:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he has been. He was advised of consensus above. Undid it ... with his consensus-violating sig. I did him a favour and reverted, but he decided to add new comments - again with the improper sig. He knew the restriction, chose to violate it, and continues to do so on his talkpage. Probably close to losing talkpage access the panda ₯’ 23:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I love that someone actually got blocked due to a having a link, to a en.wiki article no less, in his signature. While half the signatures on this page made my eyes bleed when scrolling to this section. Keep on keeping on! Arkon (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Apparently there are 2 others with inappropriate canvassing sigs...perhaps they should be advised of the results of the above ... give them a chance to change :-) the panda ₯’ 00:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • One other, according to my post, but possibly more. As a note, I've linked to this discussion at WP:CANVASSING. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Actually, it is two others. Users Favre1fan93 and TriiipleThreat both have the "(name) Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC (date)" type of signature. Someone please notify them of this discussion, as I currently do not have the time to do so. Epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Sjones23, thank you for notifying these users. Epicgenius (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

While I am a bit baffled that Darkwarriorblake has been blocked even though he has good intentions, I've notified the two other users about this discussion as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I click on your contributions link in your sig and I get sent to a subpage of yours instead of your contributions. In this of all threads. Hm. --72.251.71.184 (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it details part of my major contributions to articles as well. I've been here for nearly 7 years actually. Anyways, back to the discussion at hand, I've notified the other two editors, but I am remaining uninvolved in this matter. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing against you. It's just the irony (and in some cases, hypocrisy) about sigs. To block, or not to block? --72.251.71.184 (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I just don't want to link to discussions that violates WP:SIG and WP:CANVASS and get blocked over it. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• IP, this was specifically about linking to discussions. Not linking to user subpages that are not discussions. That is somewhat different, as WP:CANVASSING doesn't apply to user subpages that are not discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• I know that, but when subjectivity creeps into the rules, it is very hard to objectively follow the rules. With that, I will stop poking. Cheers. --72.251.71.184 (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• What is subjective here? Everyone except you has been talking about discussions since this thread opened. Discussion: "the act of talking about something with another person or a group of people : a conversation about something." The page Sjones linked to does not even remotely fit that definition. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Forgive me, I did not realize that my actions construed WP:CANVASSING and have removed the link from my signature.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• I have removed mine as well. However, I must agree with Dark, that I don't see this as CANVASSING as that has been defined there. But as has been decided, I have removed it from my sig. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is there some serious confusion about what canvassing is on the part of User:Darkwarriorblake? Canvassing never forces anyone to comment anywhere. Forcing people to comment somewhere isn't even simple canvassing, it sounds like a much more serious problem like threatening or something. Even some sort of quid pro quo arrangement (you !vote how I want in my discussion, I !vote how you want in your discussion) would be a serious problem beyond simple canvassing.

It's true that the signatures appear neutral and were open, unlike some more common canvassing. However it's well established that even neutral, open messages can be canvassing, particularly when they are targetted at people with a specific POV. In terms of targetting, while I see no evidence targetting has happened, there's always a risk it will when people are making it a standard part of their signature. It's easily possible that an editor is more likely to interact with (whether directly on their talk pages or indirectly in places where they hang out) editors who share their POV on issues. (The effect may generally be less than directly asking in these places, let alone with a non neutral message, but that doesn't make it more acceptable. And in some cases it may easily be more, e.g. if the person is signing regularly.)

More to the point, regardless of the possibility of inadverted or intentional targetting of a partisan audience, the canvassing page makes it clear excessive cross-posting or spamming also generally crosses the line in to canvassing. As has been stated by Epicgenius, if the editor was a SPA who rarely makes signed comments anywhere, it may be difficult to argue massposting or spamming has occured. Not so much when it's an established editor who regularly makes signed comments. Really any case where you are inviting editors in many different places is an automatic red flag. The only case when it's really acceptable seems to be if there is an accepted non partisan targetting of such mass invites, for example inviting previous participants of a xFD.

So we actually risk a double whammy here, both spamming/massposting and a partisan audience. Considering that, and the fact it also violates WP:Sig, there's clear reason not to do it. I don't think we need to go any further if editors stop since it's easy to understand that editors didn't feel they were canvassing.

Note that it's always the case that 'it is impossible to control the outcome of anyone visiting those review pages, everyone attending can as easily go against as for'. It's hardly unheard of for a flawed attempt at blatant canvassing (e.g. posting with a very non neutral message to contributors who are likely to share your POV) to actually have the reverse effect of the intentions if the canvasser infruriates enough people or simply because people who have been canvassed may be reluctant to get involved because of the canvassing even if there's a chance they would have found it and commented without the canvassing. (Of course the possibility that people could do this intentionally in some sort of false flag operation is another reason to take canvassing seriously.)

Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

Also: Category:Wikipedia_files_with_a_different_name_on_Wikimedia_Commons There is a HUGE back log of images that are tagged as {{nowcommons}} (almost 2500). We need some admins (if anyone is available) to help out with this backlog. I know this isn't as mission critical as other parts of Wikipedia, but when over 100-200 new images are transferred daily, this backlog is only going to become more and more difficult to tackle. Some notes to those interested in helping out (these are mistakes that I have made previously, and this list is shamelessly stolen from Magog the Ogre:

A few notes before deleting an image as NowCommons:

• If there are any old versions in the history of the image, they should be moved to Commons as well. There is a bot specifically for this task: toollabs:magog/oldver.php.
• Please make sure to relink any files which are on Commons under a different name.
• Please make sure that the image has been transferred to Commons.
• Please make sure that the Commons image shows proper attribution (i.e., it's not a copyvio for failure to follow attribution requirements).
• Please make sure that the Commons image is not a copyright violation.

Please and thank you in advance! Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Now its over 4500 images! HALP! TLSuda (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: I sent a note to Fastily on Commons about marking the images for deletion here so that they don't create such a backlog. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I only recently noticed that Fastily was doing work locally again. Sometimes he's too good at his work...creates more work for others... TLSuda (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that's usually the one thing he's very good at, eliminating work for the rest of us. Anyway, if he marks files with his username, I can use Twinkle (in conjunction with my script to check for multiple errors, multiple uploads in the history, etc. ) to delete hundreds at a time. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: You're right, that is what he is usually good at, but since he left the project (understandably) he can't help where he did before. :( Also, teach me your wise ways of cleaning up in large quantities appropriately, please? TLSuda (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@TLSuda: I have a script that I run ad hoc whenever I want to delete NowCommons images. I used to have it run daily on the Toolserver, but no one was using it, so I didn't bother to port it to Labs. Did you want me to set it to run one or more times per day? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That would be extremely useful! You're obviously much more experienced at this than I am, so any help that you can give me, that I can use in turn to help the project would be great. TLSuda (talk) 02:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It's now available at toollabs:magog/commons_images.htm. It will update twice daily. Originally, I only wrote the script for personal use, so I was very lazy about a lot of attributes (e.g., the overflow). Keep this in mind if something is bugging you. Let me know if you have any other questions. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

About sources used in articles about countries

I come here to ask for opinions (sorry if it's not the proper noticeboard) about the sources used in ethnic groups in articles of various countries (mainly Mexico) because it will be easier to make the changes if i have the opinion of more experienced editors and administrators. My question is wheter official sources regarding ethnic groups (Mexican government officially recognizes only two national ethnic groups: "Mexicans" and "Amerindian tribes") should be favored over third party sources, many Latin American countries don't have official racial census, so often the size of their ethnic groups is open to massive speculation and variation depending of the source used, the CIA world factbook, Encyclopaedia Britanica, and various surveys done in Latin America all report different results for each country. I believe that for that reason is better to favor official sources, like in the article for Sweden, on it the ethnic group section in the infobox specifies that "no official statistics exist", or the article for the United States, which omits the section from the main infobox, and if needed mention the third party sources in the section for demograhics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aergas (talk • contribs) 02:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a question that is better asked at the Ref desk WP:REFDESK or maybe the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN Blackmane (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the reliability of the sites that do say these numbers is not what is on question, I just want to know if official sources should be preffered over third parties. Aergas (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Deletion Box

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvind_Iyer has been listed in the Articles for Discussion.However,A consensus seems to have been reached.How can I get an Administrators attention to remove the Article listed for deletion Box that appears on the main page?thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suntug11 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was relisted on May 18th for up to another 7 days. As such, it hits the "to be closed" list on the 25th the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hate to disagree with m'learned colleague, but since "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days", I've gone ahead and closed this, since consensus seems fairly clear. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there some behavior here we should be worried about?

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

---

The history of Memento (film) over the last day + change has included some very strange edits from three sets of IPs with similar #s (but not exactly the same), all entering the fill-in-the-blanks text of a medical visit application (or something like that), and then removed by them, so net, there's no apparent disruption of the article. I could see this happening once, the person accidentally doing a copy-and-paste from something else they are doing from their computer and realizing their mistaken, but not this may times and with most of them being the IPs first or first major recent contribution after several months.

I'll keep watch on this but I am curious if this looks like any previous "attack" on a page that others know of. --MASEM (t) 13:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe students making up a document that they want to see in wiki markup? Blackmane (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Categories for discussion seriously backlogged

There are open discussions that are six weeks old, and nobody has commented on in over a month. Somebody needs to get in there and close the outstanding discussions pbp 14:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

BB88/Ich Pilot/et. al

A sockmaster (BB88/Ich Pilot/et. al.) primarily active on Commons (see commons:Category:Sockpuppets_of_Ich_Pilot) has moved on to vandalizing my userpage [2] and creating accounts with variants of my username (see user:Elcobbola4, for example, with vulgar user and talk page). Could I please have my user and talk pages protected (talk archives would be nice too) and, of course, the vandal account(s) should be blocked/reverted? En.wiki checkusers may contact me if additional information is needed to possibly help locate sleepers. Эlcobbola _talk 15:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey @Elcobbola: I've been trying to clean up his accounts globally since he's actively vandalizing on about four projects right now. I've set up a page on the CU wiki for this case, called B88, if you wanted to add some of the relevant info there. All of my info comes from the loginwiki, which is restricted in the data it gives. In the mean time I'll watch for more socks and could add your username to the global titleblacklist if you'd like, to stop his direct harassment. Thanks, Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ajraddatz:, that would be appreciated. I'll follow up on the CU wiki. Эlcobbola _talk 16:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to post earlier Done. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: - why didn't you say something? (just kidding, I promise) . Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee review of procedures (CU & OS)

By resolution of the committee, our rules and internal procedures are currently being reviewed with the community. You are very welcome to participate at WT:AC/PRR. Information on the review is at WP:AC/PRR. The current phase of the review is examining the committee's procedures concerning advanced permissions (and the appointment and regulation of permissions holders). AGK [•] 11:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Participate in this review

Why is this only of interest to admins? Howunusual (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not, which is why this notice has also been posted on the Village Pump, the ArbCom announcements noticeboard, and at least 10 other pages. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Question: How many annual reviews of procedures are there going to be? Shoudn't the committee be focusing on ways to make cases run smoother and feedback to the community appear in more reasonable timeframes rather than muck around with the procedures again? Hasteur (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur Is there anything that says they can't do both? Setting up an RfC and then letting it run doesn't seem like a terribly large expenditure of time. Besides, the proposed changes, if they go through, would mean less work for ArbCom. If anything is going to help ArbCom work cases faster, having less other things to do probably ranks high on the list. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Bot-like anon posting gibberish

See Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Really weird. I am requesting that an anon account be blocked for its actions. Adabow (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Your request has been granted. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Request to relax article restriction on Kosovo

As an article-level restriction imposed by admin User:Nishkid64 under discretionary sanctions back in 2009, the Kosovo article has been under a uniquely strict revert limitation of one revert per week for several years. During the last few days, a major overhaul of the article began, due to a consensus decision to merge the two top-level Kosovo articles back into one (formerly Kosovo (region) and Republic of Kosovo). The necessary reshuffling of material and related adjustments have obviously led to some more active editing on the article than would occur during normal maintenance.

I find that, under these circumstances, the revert limitation in its current draconian form is stifling natural development of the article. What we are seeing currently is normal, healthy editing. This of course always carries the potential for normal editorial disagreement on some matters, which may lead to the need for reverts in the course of the routine productive tinkering that is part of the normal editing process. A 1rv/week limitation puts an undue brake on this productive process. I therefore propose that the limitation should be provisionally lifted or relaxed, let's say in favour of a more standard 1rv/day one.

Since Nishkid has been barely active for the last year or so, I'm taking this straight here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please post a cross-notice of this discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable. As long as there are eyes on it to prevent any nonsense developing. --John (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• There should be no problem reducing the restriction from 1RR per week (which is uncommon and hard for all parties to remember) down to 1RR/day which admins are used to enforcing and is easy to explain. EdJohnston (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Earwig took his ball in a huff and went home it seems.

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

As has been said numerous times in this thread, there is no cause for admin action here. Let's shut it down and move on. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

---

It looks as though admin, User:The Earwig has become offended by requests to improve a bot, got all upset and shut it down, effecting the WP:DRN board very seriously. I request that this be looked into as this is some serious bull crap in my view. He cannot just take actions of this kind. He released the rights to that bot and had no consensus to remove it and tell others if they want it, they know where the code is. This needs serious attention please.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If I understand rightly, anyone could take the code and operate a bot for this purpose. He's linked the code, after all. Couldn't someone just create a new bot with this code? Wikipedia is a volunteer service; he most definitely can actions of this kind, and most definitely has the right to stop. He didn't even need to give us the link in question. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

So if I am understanding you correctly, Earwig operated the bot and hosted it and was independent of Wikipedia policy or consensus and can do as he pleases whenever the mood strikes them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Miller (talk • contribs) 03:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it means he's not forced to operate or take responsibility for the bot if he doesn't want to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Right. To clarify, EarwigBot operates well within Wikipedia policy and consensus. Bots are governed by the bot policy, and the DRN clerkbot operated within consensus as decided by this approval request. This is part of the aforementioned policy. As Nyttend mentioned, we're all volunteers, so users are under no obligation to take certain actions, such as particular edits, blocks, or deletions. As bots are operated by users and are not under the control of Wikipedia itself, their operation and maintenance is included in this too. Thanks. — Earwig ^talk 03:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This is indeed the same exact thing. Earwig operated the bot independent of Wikipedia consensus and policy and can just take his ball and leave. I have no idea what pissed the admin off and I don't care. I do care that an admin just pulled the plug because they got all pissy. That is just not cool or professional and it is noted and will be remembered. Frankly...it may have been the best thing for DRN. --Mark Miller (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly disruptive to the project and over what? I still don't know what pissed off earwig to shut down an important bot, but as I said....cool. Thanks for the memories. it was nice while it lasted.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark, you need to calm down. You've become more upset about this than The Earwig, and your posting about it here, the DRN talkpage, Jimbo's talkpage and to other editors. You aren't helping matters in any way. Maybe The Earwig needed to cool down a bit, and take a step back, but you are turning this minor situation into the end of the world. First, the bot was created by The Earwig, and as the operator he has every right to remove it. Second, he has a pretty solid reason to do so, and frankly I cannot blame him. He worked hard on the bot, making changes every time someone asked, only to be told that when he changed exactly what was asked, it caused more chaos and confusion. At this point, it would be better for someone who works more with the DRN to create a bot using the code (which he has given easy access to). Everything he has done with this is within policy, and is not in violation for any reason, whether or not he is an admin. He doesn't need a consensus to turn of his bot, any more than he would need consensus to stop editing all together. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you want the bot to run, then you take it over. If the editors of The Signpost decided to quit, would you bitch at them too? The bot operated with consensus. Consensus doesn't force an editor to actively participate at Wikipedia in areas they doesn't want to. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I fully concur with TLSuda's assessment, and I doubt Mark Miller's conduct will increase The Earwig's willingness to run a bot for DRN one whit. Also, expecting Jimmy to reply within 35 minutes? Yeah, sure... Huon (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Look at some of his other contributions, that's his M-O. If he doesn't get an immediate response that he likes, he gets upset quick, fast and in a hurry. Someone should order a new batch of chill pills. TLSuda (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not my MO. But thanks for the illustration on how an filing on this board is so quickly turned on the filer. Very nice touch there TLSunda. Gosh...perhaps accusing you of anything that pops in my mind would now be appropriate.....no, but I am sure that was your hope. And Huon, it certainly is not my intention to get earwig to run that bot again. Seriously. --Mark Miller (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

And I don't care if Jimbo responds or not. Please. Give me a break. Jimbo responds to comments all the time and doesn't all the time. Please don't make me one of those that expects him to jump to atterntion just because I posted. I have already told Jimbo before that he need never actually respond to my posts. I make them to get things of my chest and to notify him of what is going on.. I actually think it is a waste of his time and that is exactly what I meant by that.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Project consensus and policy include things like the right to vanish. Should the Earwig decide to leave entirely, we would have no reason to object. Since he's doing much less than that, why should we complain? Since you're not attempting to convince him to change his mind, what's the point of this? Like the Earwig, you are bound by Wikipedia policy or consensus, which prohibits soapboxing and the use of this project as a forum. This page is meant for requesting action, advice, etc. of admins, or simply notifying admins: it's not a complaints department. Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I get all of that Nyttend, but I am not just venting or complaining here. I felt this needed attrention and attention is what it got. Whatever the attention was...it was the exactly what I was looking for...clarification on how this is possible. Sense clearly Earwig is under no obligation of consensus that was not exactly the most accurate analogy. I am not soapboxing by any means. A disruption of the project was made by an admin and I felt inclined to bring the situation to this boards attention. Regardless of the ability to operate a bot or not at the very whim of the bot operator, this does seem to be disruptive to the board and over what apeears to be a personal issue. I get what everyone is saying, I just wish i could get even one admin to understand what I am saying and where I am coming from. But I guess it is futile. In the long run it is only making me look like an ass and Earwig look in the right for what he did. Just because he/she can, does not mean it was right to do. Thanks for at least weighing in. That much, I appreciate of everone.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The only consensus that Earwig was mandated to follow was that of the relevant Bot request. And those don't require that a bot op run said bots indefinitely or at the whims of those that took their bots for granted. The only "disruption" that shutting a bot down causes is a reminder to the editing community of just how much work these bots do for us. Resolute 04:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Or that they are worthless enough to just say..."good riddance". Look, I was not involved in the discussion. Just read it and was shocked to see Earwig's reaction. But as long as it is within the standards of Wikipedia, I have no issue but to say that the reaction was not at all professional and there was nothing I could see from the discussion to cause that reaction. Too bad too.....because the amount of work it most have taken now seems to have been a waste of time.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Put another way: due to non-wiki obligations I was increasingly finding myself in a position where I could not meet the demands of the DRN folks who frequently wanted changes made to the bot. As a bot op, I believe it's my obligation to respond to issues in a timely and appropriate manner; since I found myself unable to meet this obligation, I decided to shut the bot down rather than keep it running in an unsatisfactory state. Really, it doesn't do anything major that humans can't do themselves; it was merely designed to make some processes easier, but since it was causing problems as well, the maintenance burden didn't seem worth it. If anything, the DRN volunteers had been asking for the bot to do less over the years, not more. I'm rather surprised Mark has found its loss to be such a big deal. — Earwig ^talk 05:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a firm line should be taken in a case like this because Mark Miller is doing everything possible to dissuade any volunteer from taking on a significant role in any area. I suppose Earwig just has to suck up the unpleasantness so far, but I would urge that a final warning be issued to Mark—sufficient fuss has been made and the matter should be dropped immediately. This comment confirms that assistance is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What...I said there is no abuse after edit conflicting with you to at least thank Earwig for the time they did operate the bot. You stated: Mark Miller is doing everything possible to dissuade any volunteer from taking on a significant role in any area. That is absolutely incorrect and absurd and a personal attack. Seriously. I encourage our volunteers and i can demonstrate such with diffs if needed. But before i start providing diffs, I want this editor to do so to demonstrate they are not making personal attacks. I have always been a supporter of DRN and the volunteers and think that you should put up or shut up.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you seriously need to calm down. Legoktm (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

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

call for help

Let me start by saying that administrators became administrators because many of them used to write articles. Some stopped, which is too bad.

Let me also say that some WP adminis are bullies who like to make snide comments and attack me after I post this thread.

I write because I see an extremely biased article and smear piece about this fraudster. It doesn't matter that he's a right wing person as WP is not suppose to be a liberal supporting website. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Carson

When an article is this bad, a few WP admins who used to write articles should run to fix it. thanks. Stephanie Bowman (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

While you are at it, I don't like WP because of bullying . Be mindful of this if you want to improve WP. Get to not do it and help prevent others from doing it. Also try to be fair. There is a lot of inconsistency in WP but a common excuse is other crap exists. No, e should strive for balanced standards. One minor example is the selection of articles. TV episodes are considered notable but not a small town mayor. Video games but not certain people who have been in the news with hundreds of articles. Weird.

Notability is not about small town mayors...it is about particular small town mayors. In other words, some small town mayors may be notable and others may not be. It's about the individual and not the position.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk spam - part II

User:Pitke reported about it earlier and that IP got blocked but now that user has came back from IP block 85.76.x.x..

Better explanation I wrote earlier: here --Texku (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

slight problem

Could an admin please have a look at edits by user:Baldymart? Seems to have a fascist taste to it.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What do fascists taste like? Chicken?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you may have meant to file this at AN/I as this board, I believe, is for reporting administration. Of course I could be wrong. Also, you need to notify the editor that your began this discussion so I have notified them for you.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Since I am a German national I do not find that funny at all.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• If you are going to make a claim like that, please provide diffs. Don't ask us to filter through all his edits. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If one finds that carriers of the so called “Knights cross & Oak Leaves “ notable personalties I should think yes – check his edits. But if Wikipedia wants to support this so be it.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crucible where we demand those of opposing political beliefs to change their ways or stop editing. Bias is something we all face, but this filing lacks substance and seems to be a personal attack. Why would you say that being German, you didn't find that funny? I am half Italian and thought it was hilarious. Lighten up.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Without comment on the individuals he added, note that Charles Manson is notable, as is Hannibal Lecter and James Earl Ray. Neutrality means that notability is decided by sources, not by our opinion of the morality of the individual that sources are covering. So if it is that he is adding names to organizations you despise, we can't help you. If there is more substance to the complaint, then please share it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistent answers, need clarification

Hello. I nominated the article Boxxy for its 2nd deletion afd, and I wish to notice the individuals who have granted any kind of !vote or !comment on the old afd. I would not be notifying only the !delete or !keep crowd, but every single person on the old afd. I have asked multiple administrators on the help IRC, and I have been receiving conflicting answers. The general responses have been:

• That the consensus in the old discussion was delete, and that I'd be notifying 'mostly the delete crowd with some keep collateral' as one admin had put it. This may be a form of votestacking.
• Since I had noted the older discussion was delete in the nomination, I'd be biased in going back to the old afd to notice editors.
• It would also not look good considering that I am a strident supporter in its deletion, and that the old consensus was to delete.
• The amount of notifications that would be given by me would be up to 60 editors, and may count as "spamming" them.
• Some of the editors may be inactive.
• That it would be alright as long as the message is neutral and only one is given per user.

I also asked in a {{help me}} request on my profile, located here where User:Acalycine was gracious to help me out, but I think that it's a bit more complicated and wish to tread with caution.

Why I decided to ask here instead is because of the lack of consistency in administrator response. 4 different administrators, 2 said I could do it, and 2 said that I couldn't. Any advising or commentary would be greatly appreciated by administrators, as I do not wish to be blocked for possible canvassing. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• My singular opinion is that it is fine as long as you notify everyone, and you do so in a painfully neutral way. "There is an AFD that you might be interested in as you participated in a previous AFD on the same subject (link). (sig)" As long as you don't inject opinion in the notification and tell everyone, I can't see how that violates canvassing policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's fine but I wouldn't bother -- the previous Afd was five years ago so many of the editors may not even be active. Less work and you don't have to worry about whether its an okay notification or not. NE Ent 23:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• Very good point. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sign up nagging

Where can I give Wikipedia appropriately polite feedback about the insufferable "Sign Up" nagging? Either go ahead and disable IP editing, or don't. But please, for the love of god, don't punish people for making edits when those people have zero, absolutely zero interest in registering an account, because otherwise they would simply do so whenever they want to. --85.197.12.42 (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. But I know Okeyes (WMF) uploaded the nagging / polite privacy warning, so they may be able to direct you to the appropriate venue. NE Ent 23:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)